Their preferences boiled down say, "I like D&D. I don't like X edition of D&D. Therefore X edition isn't really D&D."
I'm not sure how you could read PJ's and DA's quotes any other way. They are flat out saying that some versions of D&D aren't actually D&D. That's a bit different from simply stating a preference.
All three seem to be walking a fine line between stating a preference and making absolute statements, so it is a bit tricky. But I hear your point.
But, we're talking about outright CHANGING the rules. If it was suddenly decided that all left handed batters will always strike out, fans wouldn't be giving them a pat on the back.
What I find rather strange is that some support the idea that "this game is simply D&D and it bears the same name as what is written on the cover, and has a passing resemblance to all other games of D&D" whereas in pretty much any other group activity, this is condemned.
But each edition included rules changes, so unless you adhere to the view that only OD&D is true D&D and everything else is "another game," then the logic in your first paragraph negates every version but one as D&D.
As for the second, what is wrong with saying that all versions of D&D are D&D? I mean, I suppose if Ford bought D&D from Hasbro and called their new SUV "Dungeons & Dragons," we could safely say that it was indeed not truly D&D. But every edition of D&D has shared certain core commonalities, particularly in terms of iconic tropes and rules features.
In the analogy I used of baseball, we're not talking about a switch to hockey; we're talking about the same basic game with added and/or changed rules, new elements, etc. Major League Baseball in 1910 was very different than it is in 2010; it was played only by white people, it was much rougher, there were far fewer home runs, there was little to no conditioning, less medical technology, no free agency, much lower salaries, etc.
Now one could argue that they
prefer 1910 baseball to 2010 baseball, or one could say that they like certain elements of 1910 baseball better than 2010 (or vice versa), but I find it difficult--not to mention rather antagonistic--to say that one is baseball and the other is "another game."
The position is 3.X core is D&D and there was a plethora of optional rules. If some/most/all of the optional rules are used, the game turns into something other than D&D. The same argument applied to 2e as well.
After all, if we remove all the optional rules from your proposed character, the page is empty
But D&D is what we, as DMs and players, make of it within our own campaigns. You use what you like, jettison what you don't. Each edition (or game) has a default rules set and assumption, but every campaign will be different to varying degrees. To me
that is D&D.
I could and can read them different because I noticed Danny Alcatraz used the words, "for me," meaning he was stating his personal preference and not telling others what they had to prefer.
And P.J. didn't actually make a statement about which editions he was talking about in that quote, merely giving the personal rule of thumb he uses. And while his understanding of what Dungeons and Dragons is might be different than mine, I thought it seemed a pretty decent rule of thumb.
I don't, because he's emphasizing rules over tropes, "crunch" over "fluff." Plus it is extremely narrow and exclusionary (is that a word?
.
Its perfectly valid for someone to say, this game does not give the game experience that I recognize as Dungeons and Dragons. Which gets back to my point that when we recognize everyone has slightly different interpretations of the Dungeons and Dragons experience, we can better understand why a more generous and flexible ruleset does better in public opinion than a narrower rules set which mandates a certain style of play.
Yet I don't think it is valid to say "Your version of D&D is not actually D&D because it doesn't fit my own personal definition." It is valid to say "Your version may not be my preferred version, but it is still D&D, still part of the "D&D Family."
And it is
because of the "slightly different interpretations" that we need to take a big tent perspective. I mean, why not hold a position in which everyone is invited to the table? What do we lose by offering validity to all variants of D&D? It doesn't mean we can't have our own style, our own version of the game within our own campaign, but it does at least extend an olive branch to the Other. I mean, the narrow, "My version is D&D and every other version is some other game" is just another variation on the same old, "Your religion is wrong, your fun is bad, your tastes are dumb." Sure, it is softer and gentler, but it is the same basic principle.
Now if we can all accept and embrace every version of D&D as valid,
then--and I would say
only then--can we have "inter-edition" conversations without them resulting in Edition Wars. And we could have some very interesting conversations, at that.