Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="haakon1" data-source="post: 9231099" data-attributes="member: 25619">Perhaps.&nbsp; Just about every discussion here is:Poster 1) I’m right!2) You’re wrong3) I agree with #14) I agree with #21) You’re wrong #3.&nbsp; I’m more right about it than you, so we don’t really agree even though we’re saying the same thing.5) You’re both right, except you’re all wrong.&nbsp; Only I am right.6) Snark, haha7) This is a plus thread, no snark3) Random different direction of thread8) Hasbro sux.&nbsp; Plus threads suck.9) Why is this discussion going on.&nbsp; What about unrelated issue?1) Come on everyone, just admit I’m right and the best.&nbsp; Gah.I suppose there’s some truth to that, because of the “if”,&nbsp; but I prefer not to play editions I don’t like.IMHO, every edition of D&amp;D is chasing the platonic ideal of AD&amp;D (1e, The Real Thing) “only cleaned up”.&nbsp; Some editions get closer than others.&nbsp; Some miss by more (4e, imho), but all have a redeeming feature or two (Nentir Vale for 4e, imho).It’s quite possible to recruit new players to play old editions.&nbsp; 1986-1988 and 2003-2007 were the only times I was DMing the current edition, and I have neverhad a shortage of players.In my experience, most players just don’t care which version of the rules are being used.&nbsp; And those who do know don’t (in my experience) think newest = best.I hear from you a theory that new = improved and “innovation“ is important and craved by D&amp;D players.&nbsp; I don’t buy any of that.&nbsp; I suspect (subjectively) that most D&amp;D people prefer classic from AD&amp;D era races, classes, monsters, and settings over stuff created in the 4e era and on.&nbsp; Sure, some people like Dragonborn warlocks, but I don’t think it’s as many as half-elf wizards and human fighters.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="haakon1, post: 9231099, member: 25619"] Perhaps. Just about every discussion here is: Poster 1) I’m right! 2) You’re wrong 3) I agree with #1 4) I agree with #2 1) You’re wrong #3. I’m more right about it than you, so we don’t really agree even though we’re saying the same thing. 5) You’re both right, except you’re all wrong. Only I am right. 6) Snark, haha 7) This is a plus thread, no snark 3) Random different direction of thread 8) Hasbro sux. Plus threads suck. 9) Why is this discussion going on. What about unrelated issue? 1) Come on everyone, just admit I’m right and the best. Gah. I suppose there’s some truth to that, because of the “[B]if[/B]”, but I prefer not to play editions I don’t like. IMHO, every edition of D&D is chasing the platonic ideal of AD&D (1e, The Real Thing) “only cleaned up”. Some editions get closer than others. Some miss by more (4e, imho), but all have a redeeming feature or two (Nentir Vale for 4e, imho). It’s quite possible to recruit new players to play old editions. 1986-1988 and 2003-2007 were the only times I was DMing the current edition, and I have neverhad a shortage of players. In my experience, most players just don’t care which version of the rules are being used. And those who do know don’t (in my experience) think newest = best. I hear from you a theory that new = improved and “innovation“ is important and craved by D&D players. I don’t buy any of that. I suspect (subjectively) that most D&D people prefer classic from AD&D era races, classes, monsters, and settings over stuff created in the 4e era and on. Sure, some people like Dragonborn warlocks, but I don’t think it’s as many as half-elf wizards and human fighters. [/QUOTE]

Verification