Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GENEWEIGEL" data-source="post: 401862" data-attributes="member: 7710">I just had a lengthy post disintegrated...ARRRGGHHH!And it was an apology to Storm Raven for all the aggravation I've given him and his buddies.Just kidding, I would never apologize to SR! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Seriously I just lost a mega-post explaining the scholarly comment!Doh!I am not writing that again. So quickly:I did not mean scholarly as a &quot;dis&quot; but instead suggesting that the current trend has been to take books as official to be official without question.Where as someone like myself and other &quot;1e fans&quot; ask what has changed in the rules, the stories or the style that makes everything seem so strange in the Dungeons and Dragon phenomena's current incarnation.Questions like what happened to the wierd and esoteric feel the game once had and such.That's all I meant by scholarly. An appreciation of the game's history rather than automatically taking for granted what the latest authors of the game think it is.I respect Gary Gygax completely for giving us this game and his efforts in its construction. It's so thoughtful that it eclipses other game types. I'm sure a lot of us feel this way.A rejection of respect for all the years of work that went into AD&amp;D is a rejection of the thoughtfulness that went into the game.Therefore unscholarly in method towards what the game is.A game of thought.In plain in English, why have a superficial interest in a thing that's going to take up a whole chunk of your time anyway?<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Therefore the comment 3e superfans are unscholarly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GENEWEIGEL, post: 401862, member: 7710"] I just had a lengthy post disintegrated... ARRRGGHHH! And it was an apology to Storm Raven for all the aggravation I've given him and his buddies. Just kidding, I would never apologize to SR! ;) Seriously I just lost a mega-post explaining the scholarly comment! Doh! I am not writing that again. So quickly: I did not mean scholarly as a "dis" but instead suggesting that the current trend has been to take books as official to be official without question. Where as someone like myself and other "1e fans" ask what has changed in the rules, the stories or the style that makes everything seem so strange in the Dungeons and Dragon phenomena's current incarnation. Questions like what happened to the wierd and esoteric feel the game once had and such. That's all I meant by scholarly. An appreciation of the game's history rather than automatically taking for granted what the latest authors of the game think it is. I respect Gary Gygax completely for giving us this game and his efforts in its construction. It's so thoughtful that it eclipses other game types. I'm sure a lot of us feel this way. A rejection of respect for all the years of work that went into AD&D is a rejection of the thoughtfulness that went into the game. Therefore unscholarly in method towards what the game is. A game of thought. In plain in English, why have a superficial interest in a thing that's going to take up a whole chunk of your time anyway? ;) Therefore the comment 3e superfans are unscholarly. [/QUOTE]

Verification