Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3646762" data-attributes="member: 22779">So, now we should just ignore those inconvenient bits of gaming history when it suits us?&nbsp; I get taken to task for this over and over again, yet, here you are advocating sweeping it under the rug simply because it suits you?I don't think so.&nbsp; UA was an incredibly munchkinny book.&nbsp; Pretty much every part of it gave huge advantages to the PC's without giving anything to the critters.&nbsp; Being able to start as a lord for example.&nbsp; Heck, by UA, a paladin HAD to start off as upper society.&nbsp; But, since we're not supposed to mention anything like this, because, you know, any mention of the bad stuff in 1e is automatically edition bashing and wrong.&nbsp; It's perfectly acceptable to use terminology that is insulting and elitist, but ONLY when discussing the perceived failings of 3e.Or, perhaps, RC, you feel that selective editing of perception is more conducive to making your point?&nbsp; That if we allow ourselves to actually look at what is there, rather than what we would like to be there, that it would be a better way to discuss matters?Considering the number of times you've chucked the midden at me for apparently doing that, I find it rather surprising that you would advocate such a position.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3646762, member: 22779"] So, now we should just ignore those inconvenient bits of gaming history when it suits us? I get taken to task for this over and over again, yet, here you are advocating sweeping it under the rug simply because it suits you? I don't think so. UA was an incredibly munchkinny book. Pretty much every part of it gave huge advantages to the PC's without giving anything to the critters. Being able to start as a lord for example. Heck, by UA, a paladin HAD to start off as upper society. But, since we're not supposed to mention anything like this, because, you know, any mention of the bad stuff in 1e is automatically edition bashing and wrong. It's perfectly acceptable to use terminology that is insulting and elitist, but ONLY when discussing the perceived failings of 3e. Or, perhaps, RC, you feel that selective editing of perception is more conducive to making your point? That if we allow ourselves to actually look at what is there, rather than what we would like to be there, that it would be a better way to discuss matters? Considering the number of times you've chucked the midden at me for apparently doing that, I find it rather surprising that you would advocate such a position. [/QUOTE]

Verification