Edition wars...a GOOD thing? or if not, an APPROPRIATE thing?

[Aberzanzorax]

I've read many threads and opinions that seem to attempt to demonize or suggest the invalid/pathetic status of individuals or their arguments regarding edition wars.

WHY?

In my opinion, edition wars are a GOOD thing. They let publishers know about the degree and direction of the fans/players' response to both old and new products. They tell WotC that "they've gone too far" or "they've made a great new game...different enough to really capture people who felt the older materials were poor or lackluster."

Edition wars seem to be here for a while, and here to stay for the forseeable future (though they'll die eventually, most likely). But, really, what is so bad about them?

There seems to be a real source of conflict that people appear to want to discuss and resolve. Of course there are trolls, but I don't really believe that many/most of the edition "warriors" are that. Trolls post for the purpose of stirring up trouble. Edition warriors have something to say (regardless of the side they are on). They may attempt to invalidate one another by calling them trolls, but I don't think that is what they are on either side, on the most part.

So, as another thread asks...why? But...this thread asks, "why not"? It seems, if not good, at least "natural". Given the degree of changes, the (necessary) investment of individuals in the game (there are a lot of rules to learn and a large time investment to tell a story/get anywhere), and the counterforce of people on the other side of the fence, isn't in sorta natural?


Someone recently posted a thread about edition war fatigue...which I believe is another blip on the radar of "your divergent and angry opinions should not be so divergent and angry"!!!!!

Of course, people shouldn't just air anger for its own sake. People don't gain much, and lose pleny in such endeavors. But the discussion, the parsing, and the general atmosphere that has been created seems too often blamed on the "edition warriors". "WHY DON'T PEOPLE STOP FIGHTING!!!" is too often a comment here.

I wonder...is it the fault of any individual who is fighting? Even a, so called, troll? Or, has something happened...an environmental/marketed/business spun (not just WotC)/timing related/other event related (cancelling of WotC licenses to other parties like Paizo, Arthaus/Ravenloft, Dragonlance, etc....the PDF debacle....etc........and/or Paizo's capitalization on the emotion and "pushing" the point that maybe 4e alienated people and they-Paizo- didn't want to)...that has led to a phenomenon that drives the behavior of people en masse?


In short. I don't decry the edition wars...and if I do... I don't blame the fans. I wish others would take a similar perspective. However, at the same time, I certainly realize that my own opinion could be off base as well.

You can't "shut down" anger. You can diffuse it. Usually through either correction of the reasons that cause it or an apology for the reasons that will not be corrected.

Thoughts? Let me have it.

 

[JoeGKushner]

There seems to be a real source of conflict that people appear to want to discuss and resolve.

Completely disagree. Discussion nor resolution is ever the source and never occurs. I don't think I've seen a single post by a hater of one edition that stood up and went the opposite route. "Gee, I actually don't hate edition X! I was merely misinformed!"

Most of the 'wars' simply boil down to preference.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Debates on edition merit are indeed a good thing. Wars happen when those unable to debate rationally about a topic begin attacking individuals rather than whatever it is they supposedly dislike. This leads to a string of personal insults that have nothing to do with the original topic and is thus unproductive.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Any chance we can cut the edition war threads thinly disguised? We have had a couple of them locked recently for good reason.

As for the OP, NO!!! Having people fighting with each other and generating bad will is not good for the forum. If you want to engage in edition wars, lots of forums are far less strictly moderated and allow this kind of thing. Wizards is a good place to engage in edition wars if that suits your fancy.

 

[Turtlejay]

Are you high? Worst idea evar.




That is edition warring, what you seem to want is rational discourse, and that is certainly going on. Do not confuse the two. Advocating edition warring is advocating bad blood and arguments for the sake of arguments.

And this meta-edition warring is already silly. How long before the meta-meta edition war threads show up?

Jay

 

[Vorput]

Edition war is probably a bad term from the start.

Rational discourse concerning the positives and negatives of various products, on the other hand, seems like a good thing.

 

[Crothian]

You can't "shut down" anger. You can diffuse it. Usually through either correction of the reasons that cause it or an apology for the reasons that will not be corrected.

Anger also is not to be reasoned with. People are so caught up with liking what they like and hating what they don't like that reason rarely comes into it. I've had some great discussions with people about different editions of D&D. But it is rarely on the net and when it is it last only until someone shows up and doesn't want to be part of a discussion.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I personally think that if EN World had created an Edition Wars forum, and left it completely unmoderated, people would have burned out on it quite a while ago. Combine that with liberal use of the ban-hammer for Edition Warring, however disguised or passive-aggressive, in every other forum.

When you let something boil over, it runs out of steam much, much more quickly than when you force it into a simmer and put a lid on the top.

EN World is still simmering, and I don't see that ending in the near foreseeable future. It's just a function of the way things are done here.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

JoeGKushner: Well, I actually HAVE seen posters change positions...but to be fair, it was fairly early on, and they stuck to their new positions. This occurred in both directions, and on the WotC forums (may have happened elsewhere, I can only point to those).

Exploderwizard: Of course I agree with your points. I don't think a sane person would disagree. As I understand them, though, you're saying that irrational arguments and personal attacks are bad. Of course they are. I don't mean to strawman you here, and call me on it if I have! But I do mean to say that conflict might lead to this...that doesn't mean the conflict itself is bad. Such tactics and immaturity are, of course, but the actual conflict shouldn't be swept aside just because some people are too immature/virulent to deal with conflict appropriately. In fact, sweeping conflict aside usually makes such arguments go "underground". I submit it's not the edition differeneces and the discussion thereof, but the people and/or arguments that get out of control.

dice4hire: Not sure if you think this is an edition war thinly disguised. It is a "meta" as you suggest. I'm addressing the phenomenon and the demonization of it. I do admit that this likely will bring out some negativity, but I also ask why that is even bad? I'm not supporting one edition over another here...I've tried hard not to indicate any favor either way. But why? You've appeared to react emotionally (negatively) to edition wars...and sent the idea of doing so away. But why? Why must conflict resolution be negative? Why must it be "squashed"? Why must it be strictly moderated? (Here I need to point out that the moderators here actually DON'T squash conversation, just snarky, sarcastinc, ill will, etc). I think EN world is safe...as safe as it has been and safer than most (or even every other) site.

Turtlejay: I like your inital point. I think the problem, in part, is that the two ARE already confused. Some people see an edition thread AS a war. Others can have rational discourse at any point. This was brought up in the "edition wars research thread". Different people have different names/meanings tied to edition wars. I don't personally see it as "fighting inanely" but others put that pejorative spin on the term "edition wars". As far as meta-meta-meta.... discussion goes so far as it's needed. The fact is, the edition wars are still going on, as you yourself seem to point out. My question is: why is that REALLY a problem?

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Vorput, Crothian, and Jeff...

agreed.