Jack99 said:
If I am an edition warrior, I am definitely a defender. Why? Mostly because I get tired of people spreading what I perceive as lies or misguided opinions about 4e.
I think this quote is really interesting from a meta-war standpoint.
For instance, I think you could see the same position for someone that Jack99 perceived as a "striker" -- they would say they are just defending their favorite game. That, for example, 4e's assertion that 1st level HP should be big (just to pull a card from the deck) is an attack on their game's belief that 1st level characters should be fragile and nervous. They say "4e makes 1st level too easy," someone like Jack99 comes along, sees that as an attack, and starts "correcting the misguided opinion," posting all sorts of examples of difficult 4e 1st level encounters, effectively missing the point, and thus resulting in the first person getting MORE defensive, and so on, spiraling until the thread is klunked.
Usually, every side in a conflict sees themselves as the aggrieved party.
It's also very subjective. What might be a total gamebreaker for one group might be the best thing ever for a different group, so the first group might come to the boards and angrily rant about how Rule X destroys their fun, and when the second group sees it, they condescend and ascribe motives and try to otherwise account for how this person could be so removed from the reality that they know (Rule X makes the game more fun than ever!).
For me, it's more interesting to see the meat behind the criticism, so that we can get at what really makes a game fun for one group, and not fun for another. Even a hyperbolic, cliche criticism like "4e is a videogame!" or "1e is poorly designed!" has some actual cogent thought behind it somewhere, and I think it's important to understand
why someone thinks that, and what can be done about it. I think many self-appointed defenders are too quick to dismiss perceived criticism -- they jump at shadows and scream at the attacks that aren't even attacks.
I think the current "This mentality needs to die" thread is a good example of weirdness on all sides of the divide. It starts off directly hostile and blaming 4e, even with a "videogame" thrown in, but it quickly turns into a discussion of what happened, why, and how it might be avoided. Kind of the essence of a 4e attack that might be characterized as vaporous angry internet posting. You also have some "defenders" going off half-cocked at perceived threats that aren't really threats. And in there is also some interesting discussion about creative "say yes" DMing, what happens when you videotape someone's D&D session, the true nature of the edition divide, what allows for creative play, and a handful of other really interesting ideas. What could have been another pointless edition war (and what occasionally almost dropped into it, given what was posted by critics and defenders) produced some interesting discussion.
For me, I think the most important rule is to
assume the other person is being genuine. They aren't a troll, they aren't an internet tough guy, they aren't here just to stir up Edition Wars, they don't hate ENWorld, they actually have a conversation they want to have, they are willing to talk about their ideas, they aren't a hater or a fanboi, they actually have reasons for their beliefs, and these are their actual beliefs, however rabidly mad they sound to me.
If you give the person the benefit of the doubt, even if you disagree with them, you can have a pretty productive conversation. But the moment you assume you know what motivates the other person, you get beyond the discussion of the game, and get into a personal series of attacks. Whether you like 4e or not (and I count myself as fairly in-the-middle, enjoying 4e well enough while having some serious issues with it), if you are open enough to hear what people say and find out what they mean, even if they seem ludicrously insane on the surface, you can avoid the virulence of edition wars, while engaging in constructive discussion of what makes the game fun for different people, and how various rules support or inhibit that.
Which, to me, is the interesting part. I personally don't care if you're a striker or a defender. Listening to and respecting the other posters is what makes the most interesting talks, IMO. And that's what I'm here for. Interesting talks about games.
