How to respectfuly disagree with EGG?

[Umbran]

In the best of all possible worlds, of course, those making strawberry would not call it chocolate, and the creation of strawberry wouldn't put chocolate out of print. Nor would anyone believe that strawberry is chocolate.

The best of all possible worlds is not about everyone agreeing, and having the same opinion. Quite the opposite - everyone agreeing is boring, and boring is clearly not 'best".

The best of all possible worlds is about how people deal with each other when they don't agree.

 

[nedjer]

I respect his contribution to inventing RPGs and to putting them on the map. Both his writing and the massive effort/ energy he put into making D&D happen shaped the billion dollar videogame rpg industry and a good deal more.

Sony's latest kid's RPG Free Realms is basically junior D&D. Assassin's Creed is D&D on a stick. Then there's the effect on the comic book industry. . . toys . . .

Doesn't mean he was always right or a saint. But he did shape much of the fantasy content that we get today.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In the best of all possible worlds, of course, those making strawberry would not call it chocolate, and the creation of strawberry wouldn't put chocolate out of print.

They're printing chocolate now!!? What a world we live in.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The best of all possible worlds is not about everyone agreeing, and having the same opinion. Quite the opposite - everyone agreeing is boring, and boring is clearly not 'best".

The best of all possible worlds is about how people deal with each other when they don't agree.

I agree with this, but I don't see how this addresses my point at all.

My point is not that everyone should agree that strawberry or chocolate are best, but about the harm done to chocolate (and, thereby, the lovers of chocolate) by equating the two terms, and then trying to pretend that chocolate was always strawberry.

Sorry if that was unclear to you.

RC

 

[Umbran]

I agree with this, but I don't see how this addresses my point at all.

Let me try it this way. Do note that this is an analogy, not a full-blooded detailed metaphor. I don't intend that one of these flavors is exactly one of the editions, or anything that picky.

One person is allergic to strawberries, or otherwise really doesn't like them. To this person, there's a load of difference between chocolate and strawberry.

Someone else may feel that, really, ice cream is ice cream. Milk, cream, sugar, churned and frozen - that's the essence of it. The differences between the flavorants are negligible, a note so minor that they don't impact his experience of ice cream.

The second person may well claim that the two are the same, because for all the intents and purposes he sees, they are the same. The first disagrees.

In the best of all possible worlds, these two people still don't get in each other's faces. They do not need to agree that chocolate and strawberry are or are not the same in order to get along.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sure.

If you ignore the disparity of power in the relationship, everything is hunky-dory.

But it isn't the best of all possible worlds, and if one believes that harm is being done to chocolate (and, thereby, the lovers of chocolate) by equating the two terms, and then trying to pretend that chocolate was always strawberry, that person would be a fool or a martyr to simply shut up so that the other could get on with the Newspeak uninterupted.

The two should be able to get along despite their voiced opinions, not because one voice is silenced. AFAICT, that pretty much defines respect for another's opinion.

But in the best of all possible worlds, Bob doesn't have to defend the meaning of "chocolate", because Sue isn't trying to take that meaning away from him.


RC

 

[Oni]

Why not drop the ridiculous ice cream bit and say what you really mean? What your implying seems pretty outrageous an assertion to make to me so why don't we remove any ambiguity and see how well it actually holds up.

 

[Hussar]

In the best of all possible worlds, of course, those making strawberry would not call it chocolate, and the creation of strawberry wouldn't put chocolate out of print. Nor would anyone believe that strawberry is chocolate.


RC

But in the best of all possible worlds, Bob doesn't have to defend the meaning of "chocolate", because Sue isn't trying to take that meaning away from him.

In the best possible world, people would stop trying to narrow definitions of pre-existing terms to exclude things simply based on their personal tastes.

Why not drop the ridiculous ice cream bit and say what you really mean? What your implying seems pretty outrageous an assertion to make to me so why don't we remove any ambiguity and see how well it actually holds up.

Quite. Many of those who dislike 4e have repeatedly stated that 4e (like 3e before it) isn't really D&D. They do so for a variety of reasons, but, almost universally it boils down to "I like X, I don't like Y, therefore Y cannot possibly be a subset of X".

Heck, there's a rather lengthy thread here on the front page trying to claim that games which include player editorial control aren't actually role playing games, but something else.

If those who prefer earlier editions would get off their high horse and simply accept that other people see the gaming world as a bit broader than their narrowly defined preferences, we'd get along a lot better.

Now, on the flipside, if those who preferred later editions could step back and realize that there are lots of great ideas contained within the pages of those older editions and stop with the gross blanket statements of suckitude, we'd get along a lot better as well.

But, y'know what, after being told for the past ten years or so that I'm not really playing D&D by various fat-beards, my tolerance for being told so yet again is pretty much zero.

 

[Elbeghast]

People are sensitive. Especially about their gaming, and their heroes. How does one go about expressing disagreement/dislike for aspects of Gygaxian/Old School D&D without it coming across as disrespecting EGG?

Here's an option: you might just not open your mouth and let people who enjoy Gygaxian D&D play and rave about their game(s) and Gary's work. It doesn't threaten your own gaming in any way, does it?

Seriously.

When someone just passes on, it's bad form to just take a dump on the guy's accomplishments. That's about it, really.

It doesn't mean you can't discuss with level-headed people every once in a while. It's possible, when you know them, know what to expect from them, to then approach these sorts of topics carefully. But on public forums, loaded with people you don't know, some of which may know EGG for real? You are either careful, responsible and respectful in what you say and how you put it, or you don't say anything at all.

 

[aurance]

Here's an option: you might just not open your mouth and let people who enjoy Gygaxian D&D play and rave about their game(s) and Gary's work. It doesn't threaten your own gaming in any way, does it?

Seriously.

When someone just passes on, it's bad form to just take a dump on the guy's accomplishments. That's about it, really.

It doesn't mean you can't discuss with level-headed people every once in a while. It's possible, when you know them, know what to expect from them, to then approach these sorts of topics carefully. But on public forums, loaded with people you don't know, some of which may know EGG for real? You are either careful, responsible and respectful in what you say and how you put it, or you don't say anything at all.

If you bring a topic to a public forum, you should be fully prepared to discuss it. This includes viewpoints opposing yours. The only courtesy anyone should expect at all times is adherence to the said forum's code of conduct and topic range by all parties involved.

Incidentally, did you not know that EGG partook and welcomed discussions of game design, which necessarily included aspects he didn't agree with? Why would you think a critique and discussion of the man's philosophies equates to "taking a dump on a guy's accomplishments"?