D&D 4E So all these wacky arguments are still about 4e, right?

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, I think this is almost exactly what I've been trying to pin down.

If we talk about how they change pacing, if at all, that's an interesting topic to me. Likewise, their ramifications for settings with lower magic than D&D's default. We may not agree on what suits each of our needs best, but we can at least have an actual conversation with a common starting point.

I hear you! I think the "purity test" can and does take Edition Warrior form, too. 3e and 4e are definite tribes that people separate themselves into.

I'm usually optimistic, though. I think a lot of folks who spot at-will cantrips (or whatever) and have a bit of an aneurism are ultimately giving a visceral reaction. It takes a lot of game nerdiness and dialogue to know that the more fundamental complaint is, say, one about wanting the risk and reward of a "glass cannon" style character, or is really about preferring a more adversarial style of play. Which, you know, great, but then we can talk about it in terms of what 5e might want to assume as a baseline for newbies and six year olds and then work up to how it might do what you want, too. When we're calmly talking about it and not working ourselves into a froth. Come on down off that ledge, buddy, just because basic 5e wizards don't have to use crossbows doesn't mean they're issuing a referendum on your table style.

There are people who value those tribes more than they value the gameplay, and those are those few individuals who WANT to be up on that ledge, and their complaints may look much the same on the surface, but they're very different kinds of complainers. Most people just want a game they can be happy with, and find something getting in their way. Some would prefer to be unhappy.