I have to run out the door in a few minutes so can't reply to everything, but I wanted to at least reply to a few.
Well, in terms of "supporting older editions" that could mean (what I would love) putting out, and keeping in print, at a minimum the core books for each edition. But that's even more than what I think would be necessary.
I'm just saying that they're intentionally trying to remove support for older edtions (like yoinking all their pdfs).
OK, fair enough. I disagreed (and still disagree) with their decision to remove PDFs of old stuff. What I was thinking "supporting older editions" to mean was coming out with new material.
I disagree that my claim of "appealing to authority" was a dirty tactic. I certainly didn't indend it to be dirty. Your original post read (to me) to have a bit of an "I win" flavor to it...and a bit of a "you're wrong" to Dannyalcatraz. If that intent and emotion wasn't there, then I'll admit I was wrong in the "appeal to authority", and apologize for claiming it.
That wasn't my intent (sorry, Danny, if it came across that way).
I do think Mearls wrote a very similar article to what you had written (so much so that I wonder if he read it and borrowed some of the ideas or the thematic concept...not plagarized, but inspired by you).
Or maybe great minds....
Not sure what you meant by this.
An appeal to authority is a tactic whereby a weak argument is strengthened by appealing to someone else, rather than relying on its own merits. I felt like you were dismissing my post by calling it an appeal to authority, thereby dismissing it not on its own merits (or lack thereof) but because (you felt) it was an appeal to authority.
Well, you bring up a sore spot, and then are surpised that people complain.
What surprises me is how people can read something negative into Mearls' article. I'm not saying that there wasn't a political, damage control element - maybe there was. But what's wrong with that? Shouldn't they be trying to extend the olive leaf?
If you read the article without preconceived notions or with letting aside any gripes one might have with WotC, it is a pretty nice statement.
You want "edition-peace", and as soon as everyone agrees with you, we will have it.
All that stands between us and harmony is everyone else abandoning their preferences and agreeing with mine.
That's BS, Bryon, at least coming from me. I could give two rats asses what your preferences are or whether or not you agree with me; you seem to be missing the point. And I actually like discussing the merits and flaws of various editions of D&D. What bugs me is, as I think Umbran said, being jerks about our preferences and missing the forest--that we're all gamers, all D&D players (in this context)--for the trees (take your pick).
The "big umbrella" approach doesn't negate differences, it just contextualizes them within a sense of larger agreement and community. We're all nerds on the bus, if you will!
Well first off, I've seen the "support thing" mostly in reference to PDF's. I think that some people would actually like to have or be able to complete their 3.5 collection, even if it's in the form of PDF's. For me personally I would like the chance to buy the BECMI gazetteers and the Planescape stuff in PDF... these are all things Paizo or anyone else cannot publish due to IP issues.
As to what other companies make older editions available... lets see...
White Wolf has nWoD and oWoD PDF's available
White Wolf also has Exalted 1st ed. and 2nd ed. PDF's available
Chaosium has made the PDF's of the old Elric game available
Goodman continues top make their 3.5 modules available
Mongoose makes both Runequest 1 and Runequest 2 available via PDF
FFG makes WFRPG 2e PDF's available
Steve Jackson makes books available for the 3rd edition of GURPS via PDF
... you know this is kinda pointless as there are tons of companies that make older edition material available in digital format... honestly it seems WotC is actually behind the curve when it comes to allowing older edition material to be available to customers.
Fair enough. Again, what I thought was meant by "supporting older editions" was publishing new material, and no game company that I'm aware of--or at least very few--does that. But yeah, I agree about the PDFs. It was a bad PR move in a line of a bunch of bad PR moves that WotC seems particularly prone to making.
Well, I for one am tired of the war against edition warring. Why can I not simply dislike something, or disagree, or refuse to be persuaded, without being labeled as the problem?
Good point. I've often said that the worst culprit in the so-called edition war is when people claim that someone is starting an edition war when they're just talking about different editions in the same paragraph.
But in terrms of "the problem," let's take that paragraph in Mearls' article that seemed to evoke so much controversy:
Mearls said:
This may sound strange, coming from R&D—but it’s easy to mistake what Wizards of the Coast publishes as the core essence of D&D. We might print the rules for the current version of the game, or produce accessories you use at your table, but the game is what you, the community of D&D fans and players, make it. D&D is the moments in the game, the interplay within a gaming group, the memories formed that last forever. It’s intensely personal. It’s your experience as a group, the stories that you and your friends share to this day. No specific rule, no random opinion, no game concept from an R&D designer, no change to the game’s mechanics can alter that.
What's to disagree with? And, more importantly, what impact does disagreeing with this sentiment create? If, for instance, I disagree with the notion in that last sentence, I'm effectively saying that specific rules, opinions, and game concepts and mechanics
do change whether what anyone is playing in their basement is D&D or not. Do you see the problem with that perspective?
In other words, why do
I get to decide whether or not what
you are playing is D&D? I don't.
It is similar to the whole debate about the phrase "4E isn't D&D to me." If Bubba says that, he is basically saying to everyone that plays 4E that what they are playing is not D&D to Bubba. I mean, what's the point? What does that do? Of course Bubba has the right to say it, but what sort of impact does it have? I have the right to say "I hate heavy metal music", but if I say it on a forum where many people like heavy metal, what sort of shytstorm do you think I might stir up?
I'm all for freedom of speech, but we also have to look at cause-and-effect.
P.S. We can both agree that we're looking forward to 5E!