NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 7665377" data-attributes="member: 59082">Of course. And when I wrote "breaking" I don't mean "severing" as in a compound bone fracture. I mean more diverging or veering from the main direction of. Achtung Baby was still U2, but it "broke from the tradition" that they had established in the 80s - at least for many fans. In this context, it seems that a large number of people felt that 4E diverged from the core D&D tradition enough to feel like it did not adequately carry the flag of "true" D&D.  Again, I'm not saying that this is true, just that it is how a large number of people felt and a major factor in why 4E wasn't fully embraced by the community. We always revise history, whether individually (autobiography) or collectively. No one called the Renaissance by that name in 1500, but we can see now that it was a period of immense cultural growth and transformation that pivoted Europe and much of the world from the Middle Ages into the Modern Age. I wouldn't call that "bad history." I think the mistake people make is in thinking that history is somehow a factual record of events and miss that there is a mythic, human element - how we remember things. In other words, history is story. If various technological and societal innovations hadn't occurred after 1500 and the world had stepped back into a second Medieval period, then what we now call the "Renaissance" might have been called something like the "Interregnum" or the "False Revival." The word Renaissance only makes sense in light of what happened after.So in terms of teleology, I would say that the telos of history is now. So it is totally appropriate to consider how past events have led up to and formed this moment. This isn't as much projecting teleology onto past events, practices and beliefs, but looking back at them in light of how things are, seeing how things led up to this moment.  Right. We can pick out any number of things or combination of things to find similarities and differences in the various editions. ByronD would call confirmation bias. But this is a good example of what I was saying about the difference in the way that you and I think and communicate; as I see it, you focus on and seemingly require far more specificity about things, while I tend to look for the overall feeling or vibe. Another way to put it is that you seem to emphasize parts while I emphasize wholes. Maybe that is too broad of a generalization, but that's part of my point!But back to the numbers, they were being used to emphasize a point - that 4E felt like a larger jump (or divergence) from 3E, and from earlier editions, than many were comfortable with. The exact numbers don't matter because they aren't factual or even real - and they depend upon the individual.Yes, I fully agree. As I said, the numbers depend upon the individual, so you could say all are right (or wrong, depending on how you want to look at it). But it does seem that there are groups of people that gravitate around certain broad "views of tradition," such as the OSR folks, the d20/3E/Pathfinder folks, and the 4E folks. I personally see "D&D" as a kind of Platonic Idea of which there are infinite possible versions, iterations, and manifestations. All are "true," all are valid, but some are more resonant with different individualities, generational zeitgeists, and cultural mentalities.No, I am more asking if you can see how for a large number of folks--those that rejected 4E, to whatever degree--it (4e) broke with the tradition of D&D enough that they wanted something more "personally resonant" with the Platonic Idea of D&D.All interesting, valid points. But for whatever reason, a lot of folks didn't have the same experience as you. For a lot of folks there were aspects of 4E that obfuscated what you are talking about, making it feel too "video gamey," Warcraftian, etc etc. Again, I'm not talking about what is true in a factual, measurable sense, but more in the Jungian sense of being "psychic realities." Carl Jung diverged from other early psychologists in that he didn't try to determine whether what someone was saying was true or not, but why it was meaningful for the individual. So when people accuse 4E of being too much like a MMORG, one approach is to provide lists of why that isn't true, but it negates their actual internal, psychic experience. They feel that it is too much like an MMORG; that is a valid, psychic reality to them. Rather, we can--in a Jungian sense--try to understand why they feel that way, and see how it might be valid - if only for them.Just as I can read your list and understand how 4E worked for you as a worthy carrier of the "D&D essence."No I am not, and I'm sorry if you think that is my intention - I can assure you that it is not. By talking about the "space-between" or the "vibe and feeling," I am merely saying that the experience of a game or edition isn't only about specific rules or combination of rules, it is also about other less tangible elements - anything from art and presentation to the fluff text, the basic assumptions of the game, etc.Maybe for you all of that is wrapped up in specific rules, but time and time again I have seen people emphasize the art or the flavor text or the vibe of the game and how that influences their affinity (or lack thereof) for it. For some people the art doesn't matter, while for others (that are, perhaps, more visually oriented) it is huge.</blockquote>

Verification