I don't recall ever arguing that it was your experience. I'm only suggesting that other people don't necessarily agree with Jon, apparently. I can tell you something about how 1000's of people whom I played with GENERALLY played. I didn't go and seek out any one kind of people to play with, its just a sample of what was on offer in several places in the timeframe we've discussed. I don't think there's going to be any research which can contradict that, its purely what I experienced! I mean, if you literally are saying you cannot believe me and that my experience cannot be true, take a hike! It was the way things were in the places that I know about with whatever numerous random groups of players I ran into at those times.It’s not a question of winning a dispute.
You’ve repeatedly universalized your experience.
your experience is not only NOT MINE, but is also contradicted by actual research.
in other words - there is no dispute. You have your own experience but to the extent you keep arguing that this is the way thing were, you are wrong.
I didn't say it WAS better, I said it was genuinely an attempt to improve the game, and by improve I mean to create an enhanced experience for everyone involved. Obviously nobody can say objectively that one form of entertainment is better than another, but objectively there was an attempt to make something that would be more accepted as better, subjectively. I am also not passing judgment on whether that criteria was objectively reached, there's really no point in getting into THAT debate, I'm perfectly willing to accept that many people have marshaled good arguments saying it failed.See, that's an opinion presented as fact.
How can you objetively meassure the 4e Abyss and Orcus being a corrupted primordial as to being better than the legacy D&D Abyss and Orcus being an evil mortal soul that clawed his way up to demonprince?
It's like saying that this strawberry icecream is objectively better than the previous chocolate chunk ice cream.
Yeah, but IMHO one should be careful about these kinds of claims of 'equivalency'. IME you get one side which is using these sorts of tactics widely and really is basically THE problem. Then somewhere some idiot who happens to claim to espouse the other side of the argument says something stupid and offensive and its all "See, see! Its all the same, all sides are the same!" when its 99.999% coming from one side. Its not like opinions police themselves either. Once or twice I heard people who claimed to be 4e fans say things that made me roll my eyes, it was like a ratio of about 1 to 1000 that went the other way. My judgment may be somewhat skewed of course, but I think I have at least SOME ability to step back and look at both sides. Sometimes I even find the 'other side' to be pretty sympathetic, but not when its trash talk.Yes. But that doesn't exculpate parts of the 4e crowd from being just as wrong and toxic as parts of the pre-4e crowd
I've seen a few people (I don't want to name names) say stuff along the lines of "I'm not aware of the context of the examples people have pointed out in the GAZ 10", or "It's not my place to judge if that's racist/bigoted", and stuff along those lines.
I don't recall ever arguing that it was your experience. I'm only suggesting that other people don't necessarily agree with Jon, apparently. I can tell you something about how 1000's of people whom I played with GENERALLY played. I didn't go and seek out any one kind of people to play with, its just a sample of what was on offer in several places in the timeframe we've discussed. I don't think there's going to be any research which can contradict that, its purely what I experienced! I mean, if you literally are saying you cannot believe me and that my experience cannot be true, take a hike! It was the way things were in the places that I know about with whatever numerous random groups of players I ran into at those times.
I really suspect that what we have here is a situation where there were several VERY different and not well-connected 'worlds' of D&D. That was much more possible then than it is now. We just did our little local thing in each group, and all we got was Dragon articles, rumors, and later maybe some time at a con now and then. I'm NOT ARGUING that no other kinds of play existed. I do however think that they may have been less prevalent than you imagine, and that it is quite possible that when you survey they people you know, who play like you played, you get one view of things, but it may be less complete than you imagine. And yes, that applies to everyone, you, me, Jon, and other posters here too. I'd have to go read Jon's book(s) to get a better idea of what exactly he thinks the lay of the land was there anyway, I don't automatically accept or reject 2nd hand accounts. I highly suspect the view that is there is more nuanced.
This is getting a bit far afield, but I think ULTIMATELY what you have identified here is what I have termed "The Logic of Power" in discussions in more serious venues. It is a corollary, an effect of, the system of thought which I have also termed 'Violentism', which sees the world through the lens of conflict and oppositional thinking, rather than through the lens of mutualistic Cooperationist thinking. It is absolutely possible for society to shift from the former, which is quite prevalent in many parts of modern global society, to the later. If each side becomes aware of the advantages of cooperation on a mutualistic level, then they can change the social/cultural milieu to suite. If all you do is shut up and accept defeat, then you've JOINED the Violentist logic of power side, just as the victim. If you HAVE some power, then wouldn't it be foolish NOT to exercise it in the creation of mutual benefit? If one fails to do so, are not others justified in seeing that as an indication that your value system has no concern for them at all, and that you are short-sighted/foolish? I don't see how that is an escapable conclusion... Frankly most people are somewhat lazy, and fear disruptive change, and thus they feel motivated to dismiss any claim that would logically propel them to act.1.) "If I could control the universe, it wouldn't be so; Alas, I do not have the power to change it - it is not my opinion but a fact of nature."
If it was in my power to make the world more cosmically fair, I would. This can't be considered an opinion, as facts about one's own beliefs/mental states/qualia can't be examined by outside observers. Subjectivity is the hallmark of mental states.
2.) "If I could control the universe, it wouldn't be so; Alas, I do not have the power to change it - it is not my opinion but a fact of nature."
This part actually is, perhaps, debatable, but I'm not sure how could possibly change the nature of power. Anything that causes or prevents change just is power. It seems that it's conceptually impossible for this to be true. Changing the nature of power just would itself be en exercise of power.
3.) "If I could control the universe, it wouldn't be so; Alas, I do not have the power to change it - it is not my opinion but a fact of nature."
This is actually the conclusion of an argument that isn't presented here, but the point above articulates why this is a fact of nature and not my opinion.
This statement was what you were responding to when you said:
So, which segment of my sentence were you asserting to be "[my] opinion", since you have alleged that I misidentified it?
I can say this fairly honestly, having not been particularly a 4e fan at the time (after playing a bit later, I at least can respect what it did, though it wasn't my cuppa): it did not seem that way to me. I virtually never saw a 4e fan hit first, though they might be excessively vitriolic in their counterstrikes.