KORPG™ Games 
Bear with me, I’ll tie the two together in a bit. For now, the background of this concept is important – KO
A Chat…
The Rhetorical Gamer has an interesting article about how the original modules and games of the past helped to evoke a sense of shared experience in the hobby. His contention that today’s games are flowing by us into history without helping to connect us to each out as touchstones is an excellent one well worth your time to read.
I did so and forwarded the concept on to my current gaming group. Which led to something fascinating…
I was chatting with Max a bit ago and we were comparing notes on a few rpg games we’ve each played over the years. My list was surprisingly shorter than his, but not for the reasons you’d initially expect. See, I’ve actually played more games than Max, but I tend to lump things together where he doesn’t.
Max’s Contention:
Max claims that each edition of D&D is actually a separate and distinct rpg that, while having inspiration and a shared precursor, isn’t the same as the edition prior and succeeding it. For Max, 2E is one rpg while 4E is another.
What’s even more interesting is that Max only seems to make this distinction with D&D. Call of Cthulhu has also gone through some edition evolution but, aside from the d20 variant, Max doesn’t see a difference in the game until it’s played in a different era (so Victorian CoC is a different rpg from Delta Green, etc.)
But this isn’t the point so let’s just hand-wave this info away and get to the meat of the discussion. – KO
My Take:
In contrast, I contend that D&D has to be seen as a continuum of all the edition offerings that span the years. For me, D&D spans the range from B/X to Next and contains every intervening edition including the digital versions for ToEE and NWN and to separate the edition spectrum of D&D into distinct games would possibly open the door to a claim that by house-ruling something, you’ve effectively made a new rpg.
Max’s Counter:
Interestingly, Max makes allowances for 3E and 3.5 being close enough to be one rpg and does the same for B/X. In this light, simple house-ruling ins’t sufficient to separate the system into a new game and preserves the continuum but breaks up the spectrum.
However…
However, as we began discussing the differences in each edition, and why he thought the changes represented a distinct rpg or why I thought they essentially amounted to interpretation and variations on a theme (read game) and didn’t, it became apparent that we each had our favorite editions and we weren’t likely to budge from the belief that (at least on the surface) that particular edition was the best way to represent D&D as a concept.
And that’s when it struck me…
The Edition War is the Roswell/JFK Shooting/Moon Landing argument of our hobby.
Roswell: Hoax, Hysteria, or Cover-up?
See, it didn’t matter what I said to Max. Nor did it matter what he said to me.
Our arguments weren’t targeting the root of the reasons for our opinions. And since the reasons for our beliefs aren’t rooted in systems and rules, as a result, neither of us will ever be convinced the other has it right.
That’s not to say we can’t play at the same table or even enjoy each other’s company playing in the other’s favorite edition – that’s not what I’m saying at all.
What I’m saying is that, to Max, aliens crash-landed at Roswell and to me they didn’t (or vice-versa*.) And absolutely no evidence brought to the table will ever prove otherwise.
Just as in an argument on whether we ever landed on the Moon, or who was ultimately behind the JFK shooting, every shred of evidence that edition A is better/does a better job portraying D&D as a concept is met with distrust and discounted as being suspect from the get-go.
You claim we landed on the Moon and I claim we didn’t.*
Everything you bring to the table to prove me wrong is assumed to be false or incorrect, so I don’t believe a single bit of it.
But only because your chosen favorite edition better matches your concept of what you believe D&D is better than mine.
Will the real Quantum Ogre please stand up?
In a way, this is a lot like the Quantum Ogre argument.
Those who want to see the Quantum Ogre will see him in every choice offering while those of us who don’t believe he exists will see him nowhere.
No evidence to either side will ever sway true believers.
Start with the end in mind
It’s not that we’re closed minded, we’re just starting with a different end in mind.
For some, the concept of what a good D&D session entails involves something completely different than that same concept for others.
The cool thing is, I can still play with people who think I’ve missed the boat on what D&D really is, and they can do the same with me.
Because above all the edition wars and conceptual frames of reference on what a D&D game should be, we all have the same ultimate end in mind… we’re at the table to have some fun.
*For the record, I do believe we landed on the Moon, that there’s a chance aliens may have crashed at Roswell, that there are stranger creatures still yet undiscovered by science, and I have no clue who or what was the prime actor/motivation for the JFK assassination.
Excellent points.
Hmmm… Does he consider 1e and 2e different games? I don’t see a lot of difference in them, at least until you start adding kits and players option etc.
But I firmly understand your point, for a lot of people these opinons are akin to religious beliefs.
Thanks Callin.
Appreciate that someone else thinks so and that hopefully it’s not just sleep deprivation talking.
Dunno Philo. That’s a good observation though. We’ll have to see if he pipes up with an opinion on the 1E/2E question.
Is 2E a different game than 1E?
Yes.
The List:
1. Ability score tables now list scores from 1 to 25 in the PHB.
2. Ability score functions changed slightly, such as weight allowance for scores less than 10 and % chance to learn spells for scores from 10 to 16.
3. Ability scores of 5 or lower no longer limits class selection.
4. Open doors changed from a d6 to a d20.
5. Intelligence no longer affects the minimum number of spells per level for magic-users.
6. Maximum spells per level has been reduced to an optional rule.
7. Loyalty and NPC reaction changed from d% to d20.
8. Half-orcs removed.
9. Racial level limits increased and no longer based on ability scores.
10. Slow unlimited advancement for demi-humans is an optional rule.
11. Gnomes now receive ability score adjustments.
12. Racial ability minimum and maximums changed.
13. Demi-humans no longer begin knowing several languages.
14. Additional languages for demi-humans no longer limited by race.
15. Life expectancy of most demi-humans greatly reduced.
16. Dwarves now have a 20% chance for all magic items not specifically suited to their class to fail instead of a 20% chance of failure for rings only.
17. Dwarves’ underground skills have slightly different probabilites.
18. The resurrection spell now affects elves, and raise dead may affect elves at the DM’s option.
19. Gnomes now have a 20% chance for all magic items except weapons, armor, shields, illusionist items, and thief items to fail.
20. Gnomes’ underground skills have slightly different probabilities.
21. Halflings now receive a +1 to their attack rolls when using thrown weapons or slings.
22. Halflings no longer have the 20% chance for magic rings to fail when they use them.
23. Experience point requirements for classes changed, most notable is the paladin.
24. Weapons and armor permissible to some classes changed slightly.
25. Class prime requisite ability scores changed.
26. Classes were divided into four main groups (warrior, priest, wizard, rogue), no sub-classes exist.
27. Class titles removed.
28. Assassin, barbarian, cavalier, and monk classes were removed.
29. Bard and ranger classes changed entirely.
30. Fighters no longer make a number of attacks equal to their level when fighting enemies with less than one hit die.
31. Weapon specialization changed for bows.
32. The monthly income for establishing a stronghold was removed.
33. Paladins now receive four weapons proficiencies at 1st level (and gain one every 3 levels instead of every 2 levels as in the UA).
34. Magic-users now called mages.
35. Mages, illusionists, and other specialist wizards share the same experience, hit die, and spell progression tables.
36. Mages now receive hit dice up to level 10 instead of level 11.
37. Mages no longer have the ability to construct strongholds.
38. Illusionists no longer are a separate class, but are now specialist wizards.
39. Illusionists no longer have their own spell list.
40. Cleric turn undead table changed and included in the PHB instead of the DMG.
41. Druids are no longer a separate class, but are now priests of a specific mythos.
42. Druids no longer have their own spell list.
43. Druids no longer have a class level limit.
44. Thieves now allocate a number of percentage points to each skill at 1st level and with each additional level increase to their various skills instead of having each skill increase by the same amount for all thieves.
45. The pick pockets skill functions differently.
46. The open locks skill functions differently.
47. Thieves can now remain hidden in the shadows while making very small, slow movements; and a hidden thief is equally hidden from creatures with or without infravision.
48. Multi-class combinations allowed changed slightly.
49. Half-elven multi-classed clerics no longer require a minimum wisdom of 13.
50. Multi-classed wizards cannot cast spells while wearing armor.
51. Multi-classed priests are still restricted to priest weapons.
52. Dual-classed characters may now have up to four classes.
53. Dual-classed characters may only select one class from each class group.
54. Alignment definitions changed.
55. A change in alignment now doubles the amount of experience needed to reach the next level instead of causing a loss of a level.
56. Additional weapon proficiencies for level advancement now start counting from 1st level instead of including 1st level.
57. Non-weapon proficiencies*.
58. Silver pieces are now 1/10th of a gold.
59. Starting funds for a mage is now 1d4 + 1 instead of 2d4.
60. Priests may not retain any starting funds after purchasing initial equipment.
61. Prices for various items, including weapons and armor changed.
62. Some new items added.
63. Field plate and full plate no longer reduce damage.
64. Weapon vs. AC type replaced with weapon type vs. armor and made optional.
65. Missile weapon range now given in tens of yards for all situations.
66. Encumbrance now calculated off of actual weight and does not include bulk.
67. Spell components made optional.
68. Spell lists were changed, all wizards now use the same spell list. Priest spells are divided into spheres and clerics and druids use the same list.
69. Some individual spells have changed.
70. Awarding experience points changed.
71. Training reduced to an optional rule.
72. A natural roll of 20 is always a hit, regardless of the AC of the target.
73. THAC0 for thieves and magic-users changed and is unlimited in progression.
74. Segments are removed from the combat round.
75. Initiative is changed.
76. Group initiative and individual initiative optional rules.
77. Characters and creatures with multiple attacks do not automatically attack first in the round.
78. Weapon speed now affects initiative as an optional rule.
79. Two weapon fighting is only available to warriors and rogues.
80. Non-lethal combat rules changed.
81. Parrying rules changed and reduced to optional.
82. Some saving throws now have a priority over others.
83. Magic resistance no longer affected by caster level.
84. Not all monster poisons are lethal anymore.
85. Characters now gain 3 h.p. per day of bed rest instead of 1.
86. Characters can now die if they suffer 50 points of damage from one attack, regardless of their hit point total, if they fail to make a save vs. death.
87. Surprise changed, uses a d10 and represents one full round of surprise instead of a variable number of segments. Spells cannot be cast during the surprise round.
88. Surprised characters lose their dexterity bonus to AC, they are assumed to be totally non-reactant.
89. Henchmen are now special NPCs that the DM introduces into the group and are friends and allies but not employees of PCs. There is no restrictions on the level of a henchmen acquired.
90. The illumination radius of torches, magic weapons, and other items is reduced.
91. Halflings’ base movement changed from 9″ to 6.
92. Jogging and running optional rules added.
93. All characters have a 40% chance to climb walls.
94. Climbing modifiers changed.
95. MU spells max damage capped.
Wow, I’ve never seen the list of differences.
I’d say collectively that’s a lot of tweaking but wouldn’t amount to more than a typical GM home brew rules list.
I agree.
And technically that’s the point that you may have somewhat misrepresented my position on the difference between a homebrew and a different game.
It boils down to this: WotC releases games and GMs homebrew
If a GM takes the game and homebrews and then releases it, then that’s a new game.
So are you saying that each and every edition release is actually a Fantasy Heartbreaker of the original D&D?
Because that’s a rather interesting viewpoint to be sure.
Never thought about it that much but I guess so.
And because they keep releasing new versions, they’re demonstrating they haven’t perfected D&D yet.
I think there’s an interesting article there.
And there’s a big difference between us. I look at the big list of changes between 1e and 2e and don’t see anything major enough to consider it an edition change. Many of the listed changes are optional rules, rules rarely invoked, or flavor items. I know a lot of people who used 1e characters and modules with a few quick changes in 2e. Our joke is that it was supposed to be 1.5e, but they rounded up.
On the other hand, the changes between 2e and 3e and 4e are enormous. They made serious changes to the structure of the game.
Of course I don’t think I’ll convince a true believer.
And I’m in your camp there Philo.
Course, I see D&D as the aggregate entirety of the continuum of the game that was spawned from Chainmail to Next.
Nice comparison~
Those conversations do map very well to each other.
I tend to agree that a game and its editions fall under the listing of a single game… but a point gets reached eventually where the rules change so much that they push you into different behaviors or at least prevent your customary ones. That could be debated forever even without the “Not listening!” effect you describe.
I whole-heartily agree, and that’s exactly my point.
This is a debate that will never be resolved because each of us comes to the argument with a conceptual precursor on what the proper (or closest) edition to represent what we contend is the proper concept of D&D.
It is in that conceptual prejudice of the concept that the disconnect lies.
Additionally, I think the medium of the game being only in the mind and imagination (as opposed to a board game for example) lends itself to, and may very well be an unavoidable primary reason of, this very issue.
In reality, the realization that the schism is based on a bias of what edition results in the most closely aligned game to an opinion of the prefect concept of the game is closely dovetailed to the following discussions:
Discussion: Follow The Book Or Make It Your Own?
Genre, Convention, and the Crunch/Fluff Divide
As well as your post:
Playing to Type: Genre Fidelity and Growth
Each are about managing the expectations and subsequent feedback loops for all players at the table.
I am not sure if this totally matches the intent of the discussion, but it feels like it.
A few years ago, a GM in our group had us convert Aberrant characters to Mutants and Masterminds characters. Obviously, the system for running the game was entirely different, and the capabilities of the characters, although the same type and effect, were definitely not within the same ranges of effect. In many ways, as the setting, the powers, the histories, and the ongoing campaign were unchanged we were playing the same game. In some very important ways nothing ever felt right again. The characters changed overnight, and we never found a way back to who they had been. It was no less of a good time, but it was not the same experience.
While perhaps not the original intent of the post, certainly well in line with the direction of the discussion. I can see how a change in system could derail a group.
I believe that each system defines the game based on the focus of the rule-set. In fact, the prime example is the varying editions of D&D with their divergent foci.
@Runeslinger, I know some people that aren’t sesnitive to that kind of change, but I know I am. There’s lots of little ways that a game system can feel different. For one, the Aberrant rules have many powers using up quantum pool. For this you need to watch how you use your powers or you’ll end up helpless at the end of the game. In contrast, M&M defaults to not having any resources or limits on the powers. And the hero point economy often means you’ll end up more powerful at the climax of an adventure. To me, Aberrant feels more gritty and M&M feels more four-color.
Excellent point Philo. Reaffirms my belief that each system has a sweet-spot that closely aligns with the expectation and desires of a given player in a given genre on any given day of the week.
The issue with the edition war is that my expectation of the concept of D&D diverges from another’s expectation of the same concept. As a result, there’s a given edition that currently models that concept more closely for me, and presumably another that does so for someone else.
As these expectations are for a conceptual ideal, not a tangible outcome, there’s no way to bridge the gap other than to ignore the issue altogether.
Our experience definitely resonates with that contention. Even adding in or house-ruling elements to preserve or create the desired or expected play experience will fail for those with attachments to or awareness of the different versions available to them.
In this case of Aberrant to M&M, not even the GM’s foresight in including a Quantum Pool modification countered the disconnect or the shift in performance expectations Philo mentioned.
So given a genre and a group of players, can we hypothesize that it is the group’s job to choose the right system as well as manage the expectations of all players in order to best provide the optimal gaming environment.
Basically, is our collective contention demonstrating that there is a given system on a expectation spectrum for a specific genre that best matches a group?
Perhaps so… in an ‘if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it’ kind of way for new campaigns in old genres, and recognizing the attachment many people develop to whatever they encounter first.