Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6133836" data-attributes="member: 8461">Strictly speaking, no, because the characterization is an accurate one based on how you have characterized the issue under discussion, and the people who have disagreed with you. It's not an insult to say that your actions in this regard have painted you in a dim light.This is, in fact, not what the argument boils down to. You maintain that the people who disagree with you are holding onto canon simply for its own sake rather than exploring the question of merits, which is a distortion of their position. Ironically, you hold them as having a distorted view, that being their view of change (e.g. that they think it's change for its own sake). This is, in a word, unreasonable.This goes to the heart of your misrepresentation of the people who don't want to change existing elements of the game: that being your persistent failure to recognize that elements of existing lore/canon are a valid topic when debating the merits and/or faults of an idea. To you, the question of whether or not an idea has qualitative value is apparently not allowed to consider history or continuity - let alone the content of the existing canon - as part of that evaluation.Leaving aside your unsupported and sweeping generalizations that "die hard canon fans will admit that much of the writing in D&D blows," as well as the fact that you don't get to set the terms of the debate, the question of what is or isn't a merit is up to each individual to decide. You don't seem to respect that not only many, but most other people (again, check your own poll results) think that it is, in fact, a merit.Your definition of "gaining traction" aside - which appears to be some sort of hazy and ill-defined issue of how often something has been reprinted and/or used in published adventures - there's also no set definition of what constitutes a "wider appeal" anyway, let alone how you'd change something to take advantage of that.Your presumptions here are wildly flawed, as an adherence to in-game canon had virtually nothing to do with the issues of the mechanical changes between 1E and 2E, nor 2E and 3E. To suggest that they did is wildly disingenuous, and is in fact hysterical.You've also made it clear that to you, what came before is in fact not a good starting place; your initial post that started this thread contains language that makes that inarguable (emphasis mine):You've made it overwhelmingly clear that you don't understand the opinions of the people who disagree with you. That's fine, lack of comprehension of someone else's position isn't disrespectful. But continually mischaracterizing and misrepresenting them, is.</blockquote>

Verification