Storm Raven
First Post
big dummy said:True, but the subject at hand makes all the difference. With all due respect, if you are completely opposed to even the possibility of progress on principle, then you are exactly what you described above, at best.
Of course, you insult everyone who disagrees with you when doing so, and now you do again. I don't think it is surprising that your posts draw lots of angry responses.
With all due respect, you are completely missing my point. It doesn't matter what the specific remedy is because I'm not advocating a specific remedy. In this case I am ONLY talking about the possibility of reform, period.
Which makes your statement basically navel gazing and pointless. Saying "reform" without saying what needs reform and why is a worthless statement. You need a direction to aim at, and without that,. you can yell all you want about how things need to change and you won't find anyone who agrees with you.
But the issue at hand is simply the discussion of reform, in the abstract. The baby analogy everyone had trouble with was about that specific issue. I gather definitive statements are not welcome here, but some thigns are definitive. D&D is a game. There I said it. D&D has had more than one version. I said that too. No if ands or butts. Sorry.
And? You talk about "reform" like it is some sort of goal in and of itself. Talking about things "in the abstract" is about as useful and productive an activity as wrestling with your own shadow. Reform is something that needs to be directed towards a goal.
Again, totally irrelevent to the concept of reforming D&D. It will change. And it will change in the fairly near future, unless bird flu wipes us out or something. You can't escape it. So since we know it will change, it makes sense to discuss how we might best like it to change, even what aspects we feel are most important to keep as-is.
And? Does it have to change? Unless the change is directed at doing something specific, I'm not sure why one would want to change things. Unless you are actually talking about a change for a reason, then no, we don't have to accept that change is inevitable. Change without purpose or direction gives poor results, and usually hinders more than it helps. Until you define the purpose of your proposed reform, then talking about reform in the abstract is not productive.
a very poor analogy because nobody owns it, it hasn't changed substantially in centuries, is about 1000 times simpler than D&D, and works perfectly. Are you suggesting then that you believe D&D is in roughly the same design state as chess? That would explain a lot...
I'm suggesting that D&D is analagous to Chess in this regard: it provides a certain type of play experience. If you want a different type of play experience, it may not be the most useful endeavor to try to alter D&D, so much as it might be to find a game system that already delivers the game experience you want.
(And how about, instead of chess, you substitue the game Sorry. Same result.)