The edition war is not healthy. I say this as somebody who is supportive of spirited debate in all sorts of situations, including on the net- i've even been banned from several edition wars threads due to my bluntness and yet, here I am posting again. But there's constructive discussion, and there's endless threads full of
, and we all know which category the edition wars fall into.
The edition wars are not spirited debate, or rather, they are not spirited debates that could ever reach any useful conclusion. Spirited debate is pointless if it doesn't have functional terms of reference, and the edition war lacks these by design, no pun intended. Most debates rely, at least tangentally, on either some kind of won condition (like an election) or actual factual reality that must be reconciled with the views of the people debating. There's no way to win an edition war, and even if there was a bunch of objective factual data to define such a victory condition, you don't have to travel far on the internet (or in real world politics) to find people who are happy to ignore reality in favour of their point of view.
The false premise of the edition wars is bounded in a potent cocktail of subjective preference, and bizzare rationalisations of such, that lead to endless debates over the minutia and definitions of various terms. And all of this is meaningless. Deep down we all know that no matter how much discussion goes into 'video gameyness' or 'old school simulationism' or indeed,
the lack of mule stats, none of it's going to resolve the core issue: lots of people hate that D&D changed, and they want to scream and whinge and flame about it.
The people who keep re-igniting this conflict do so because they're angry and hostile about the issue and they've grown used to venting about it on forums like this. Whenever they vent, they come up with a slight variation on their arguments as an excuse for a new thread or a new post, and the whole absurd process repeats itself.
A big part of the edition wars is rationalisation. The 4e-haters rationalise their hostility, using props like design, marketing critiques, and assertions about preference. But we all knows these issues are just an excuse used by the most agressive 4e haters, to make their hostility seem more rational and less childish. They've been tolerated in this for well over a year now, and they've grown accustomed to it- it's a habit, and a cultural norm that is perpetuated in forums like this because, like it or not, it's validated and encouraged, and mod action of group disapproval of a few extremist outliers only encouraged people to rationalise their anger instead of examine it.
The people who argue with the 4e haters also rationalise their retaliations, acting as if there is some standard of dialogue they are maintaining, or that that can actually come to some constructive resolution if they bang heads with people long enough. Even if they don't state it, they're arguing that a resolution can be reached, which is hardly rational. To be fair, long study of such debates leads me to believe that, as fruitless as it may be to engaged in such argument, avoiding doing so often leads to the people on the other side acting as if their viewpoint is a universal and reasonable consensus, no matter how much of an unreasonable minority they are. Then again, who gives a tinker's damn if a bunch of dudes on the internet think they've won a debate? It's probably more constructive for the other side to just recognise the futility of the argument.
And then there is the third party, the who try and turn the edition wars threads into a 'reasonable discussion'. People sift through the debate, adding dozens of pages about terminology and prefernce and the terms of debate in an effort to make things nicer and more constructive. Some of these people mean well, and earnestly think that they can get to the core of the design and prefernce issues in these threads. Others are just 4e-haters posing as moderates in the debate, who use endless rounds of sophistry and techniques like the equivalancy fallacy to perpetuate the arguments and rationalise the hostility involved. Either way, this third colum is not helping to end the war, they in fact perpetuate it by moving people away from honestly speaking about the real core motives of the debate, which have very little to do with design or marketing or anything.
An this leads to the real issue. The healthiest thing for the edition war would be if the really habitual 4e-haters stopped rationalising, and admitted that their problem with 4e is mainly emotive and irrational.
I'm not saying they're being stupid - or rather, it's when people rationalise their emotions that they end up doing dumb stuff like arguing for a dozen pages over insane internet minutia. I'm also not saying there's anything wrong or immature about with being upset over this: real maturity isn't about lacking emotion, or never having an inapropriate reaction to something minor, like being angry at someone even though they didn't do anything wrong, or say, being jealous of a friend who has a really awesome gaming table. Real maturity is about recognising those feelings, and working through them- without becoming fixated on them, or letting them damage your relationships. This is what the most agressive and toxic participants of these debates have failed to do. They should be willing to admit that to themself, if not to us, and to take steps to change their behaviour, instead of rationalising and defending it.
I realise there are some people critical of 4e who have a more moderate view on the issue, but they're not the people keeping these debates going.
The second healthiest thing for the edition war is if everyone else admitted that they're not doing anything constructive by participating in these threads. This includes the people who argue on the other side of the edition war, and the people who set themself up as reasonable moderates. Again, there are exceptions, but a unified stance on the issue is the only way to move the comunity in a positive direction. And that hard line is not about fighting back against the 4e-dissing hordes, it's about stepping back and laughing it off and doing something more constructive. Again, plenty of people are doing this but, by definition, they're not posting on the threads, or doing so hardly ever.
I honestly think there are all sorts of criticisms against 4e that would be very useful, if they weren't obscured by this frothy cloud of erd war. At the same time, I think other design directions (such as old school dungeon play) would be far more efective and frankly, succesful if it wasn't wedded at the hip to the baggage of various edition wars- I suspect a real 'retroclone' that hit on the feel people are looking for would look very little like any edition of D&D.
Edition wars a good thing?
No, especially not nowadays. It seems to me that recent battles have been more about marketing tactics, vague gaming philosophies, or business practices-- and all largely argued by the same cast of characters.
Lately, the "Edition War" has very little to do with "Edition" at all!
People are looking for excuses to perpetuate and rationalise their anger and hostility. The edition war changes it's superficial content over time, but it's always about people who hate that D&D changed, airing their mostly subjective greviences over and over and over again.
And then another bunch of people come in an argue with them, often feeling compelled to reply to false allegations and bizzare conspiracy theories about, for instance, corperate agendas, but often just sick of the attacks and looking to stand up to people on the issue. They're rationalising too, and not really being constructive.
Admin here. This has been dealt with, folks. This is a good example if you're looking for examples on how NOT to post; we're not crazy about the insults. ~ PCat
And then a third group of people come in and try and make everything reasonable and constructive, even though it's obvious that the discussion is neither of those things.
