Understanding the Edition Wars (and other heated arguments)

[DEFCON 1]

Those who are actually warring are the minority, and tend to screw things up for the rest of us.

And this is true for pretty much everything, not just D&D.

 

[Bullgrit]

Pretty interesting to know that when I defend my favorite RPG, I'm defending my right to breed!!!

Anyone else see the irony in this? To defend our right to breed, we choose to fight over a subject usually considered a detriment to our likelihood to breed.

Bullgrit

 

[mmadsen]

My experience is that, in fact, most of us are just fine looking at the strengths and weaknesses of different editions, and so on. Most of us are not so deeply invested in a particular edition to make a fuss over it. But when we have discussions in a public venue, someone who has an axe to grind tends to take exception. Those who are actually warring are the minority, and tend to screw things up for the rest of us.

You're right. Let me rephrase:

In edition wars, the most motivated debaters are the ones who strongly identify with a team (an edition) and want to win the fight against the enemy.

Very, very few of us want just as strongly to look at the strengths and weaknesses of different editions, note how we could keep and combine those strengths from various editions without the weaknesses, etc.​

 

[mmadsen]

I think that pretty much everyone is evaluating the editions - or anything else - on the basis of the information that they have, and looking at the stengths and weaknesses of the two and making a critical judgment.

Yes, but once they've decided which choice is best, they defend it vociferously -- whether it's 3.5E vs. 4E, Ford vs. Chevy, Xbox vs. Playstation, or whatever.

Furthermore, I think that there is a cultural fallacy involved in the 'comprimise meme' you've just advanced, namely, that for any given problem you can take answers from both sides and come up with some sort of comprimise or halfway position that would be stronger than both and make more people happy. I think that its pretty rare when that is actually true, because there are usually legitimate tradeoffs where it is hard to produce 'win/win' for everyone or even most everyone.

I never claimed that combining the best elements of various editions was easy and simply a matter of meeting half-way. It's a difficult design challenge, which is why I find it interesting and why we might benefit from many minds working together.

If we put together both of your claims, we see a very strong preference for 'moderation' and a very strong attack on what you see as 'extremism'.

No, I"m not arguing for moderation; I'm arguing for analysis.

 

[Celebrim]

Yes, but once they've decided which choice is best, they defend it vociferously -- whether it's 3.5E vs. 4E, Ford vs. Chevy, Xbox vs. Playstation, or whatever.

So? Maybe they are passionate because they are actually right? Or maybe they are passionate because they are the best informed? Or maybe they are passionate because there is something tangible at stake for them if in a larger sense, there 'side' loses the argument.

To keep this in inoffensive terms, perhaps the issue is Coke vs. Pepsi. The Coke lovers are facing a situation where if there voice doesn't get heard, not only will Coke potentially become harder to find than the unpalatable Pepsi, but the producer of Coke may feel the need to concede the argument by producing a New Coke which is actually a Pepsi knock off. This memetic war then actually has stakes. Now, if you are a person who can't tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi by taste, or who doesn't like Cola anyway (you only drink Dr. Pepper), or who doesn't really care - all this passionate protesting of New Coke and all these passionate attempts to extol the virtues of classic Coke over New Coke may seem like so much silliness you you. But there is for many people something real and a tangible cost to their happiness involved by just conceding the argument and trying to learn to like New Coke.

I never claimed that combining the best elements of various editions was easy and simply a matter of meeting half-way. It's a difficult design challenge, which is why I find it interesting and why we might benefit from many minds working together.

I'm claiming that in most cases its not only difficult, but impossible. If it was merely difficult, you'd have no objection from me. But I by no means assume that "difficult" is anything but the very best case scenario.

I'd also like to note that "we might benefit from many minds working together" is an appeal to the "man power fallacy" I mentioned earlier. We might. We might not however.

No, I"m not arguing for moderation; I'm arguing for analysis.

Which again, is exactly like I said, the whiff of implying that anyone disagreeing with you - those passionate people arguing vociferously for their beliefs - are irrational and you represent the reasoned position. What makes you so certain that the they haven't completed the analysis that you are only calling for? Maybe they have actually done the analysis already, and its the conclusion of that analysis that is driving their passion.

 

[mmadsen]

What makes you so certain that the they haven't completed the analysis that you are only calling for?

If they've performed the analysis, they're keeping it secret.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm going to call this as an example of arguing on the basis of "the other guy has something wrong with him". It's a logical fallacy and a subtle ad hominem attack. Basically it says that the other guy has no logical basis for his beliefs, and he is passionate for dishonest, blindly partisan or down right insane reasons.

I really honestly don't think that is ever the case. I think that pretty much everyone is evaluating the editions - or anything else - on the basis of the information that they have, and looking at the stengths and weaknesses of the two and making a critical judgment. Furthermore, I think that there is a cultural fallacy involved in the 'comprimise meme' you've just advanced, namely, that for any given problem you can take answers from both sides and come up with some sort of comprimise or halfway position that would be stronger than both and make more people happy. I think that its pretty rare when that is actually true, because there are usually legitimate tradeoffs where it is hard to produce 'win/win' for everyone or even most everyone. And I likewise reject that it is only intrangiance, irrationality, and stupidity that keep us from recognizing these magic comprimise positions.

If we put together both of your claims, we see a very strong preference for 'moderation' and a very strong attack on what you see as 'extremism'. Or in other words, you are staking out territory for your 'moderate' team against the teams you see as being to either side of you. And I dare say there is the whiff of you implying that the 'moderate' team is the rational, reasoning, considerate one and the other teams are composed of unreasoning wild eyed fanatics that are just ruining everything for you. Now, there are probably some good reasons for prefering moderation, and by no means am I saying that you are being dishonest or disingenius. I'm merely pointing out that your claim that the other guys are merely 'fighting for their team and demonizing the other side as 'the enemy' is ironicly a charge that can be directed right back at your post.

I can't quite decide whether this a mistake or an ironic attempt to mirror some of the issues raised in the linked article!

It looks as if you have jumped to the attack were mmadsen hasn't set up a 'them and us' situation at all - he is even referring to himself/us/we, not them.

So I'm going to assume that there was a bit of a mistake, and ask you to make sure that we don't get an argument here by getting personal, OK?

Thanks.

(that goes for anyone who might feel that Celebrim has started arguing with them - this is the notice that such argument don't go anywhere else, OK?)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've been studying how to become a professional mediator (an interdisciplinary field heavily laden with psych) here in Texas for a couple of years now, from some ridiculously educated folk. As in "You have 2 PhDs from Oxford? Really?" type people. And one thing the premiere minds in the field keep hammering on is that people in a conflict engage emotionally first and logically second...if at all.

Just something to remember.

 

[Kaodi]

Nice. I first saw this article yesterday being shared around by friends of mine in philosophy.

 

[Luce]

The way I see it edition wars are in part a competition over limited resources. There are only so many players out there. If more of those played in a way liked by one the more likely to be able to find a group/game to play with. Also while it is true that being out of print does not stop existing players from continuing , such situation makes it harder to recruit new (younger) players. Unless you happen to "gro" your nards. I mean catch them young and mold them. To me one of the great advantages D&D has is the amount of support it gets. Lets face it, not everyone starts rpg-ing as part of existing, experienced group. Sometimes it falls to a new GM to run the game for a group of his peers.
While many RPG have an introductory adventures in the main books, no other (that I have seen) has as much volume and variety of support. This allows new Gm and their group to ease into the game, experiment and find their style. [Since I like the previous editions as well I hope old school clones and Pathfinder to prosper. A discussion if this will hurt 4e sales or split further the fan base is a topic for another discussion. ]

Yet another thing is that people tend to internalize. If one likes edition X and another is making disparaging comments about that edition, well the first one feel personally attacked and respond correspondingly.

Other reasons people do not see eye to eye is changes in game theory. The concept of balance and RAW had shifted to my experience.
Or I can say I play 2ed by RAW, and that is make and change rules as it makes my game group experience better. And that leads us to the point of personal preferences (and the difficulty of expressing them well enough for everyone to understand the logic, motivation and circumstances for having them in the first place)
Lets say I make a statement to the effect "I do not kill my players." It will generate a debate. If I clarify a bit more like " It does not mean that I never put them in danger or hold back the challenges, but give them a chance to retreat if they choose. The players are either not aware of my position on this or are suspending their disbelief and act appropriately in character. It works for my group." Hmm, I bit less controversial but still many will have a different experience/preference.
To take it further lets say "I have a group of three storytellers, one actor/exprorer and one thinker. Many of the fights are optional in favor of in character rp resolution. I try to give my players a chance to run and fight another day if they inevitably run into a situation over their heads due to mischance. So far there have been no PC deaths." The above is less broad brushed situation and even those who disagree mostly will "live and let live". The problem is it is very difficult to convey years of personal experiences in just a few lines.