Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5226058" data-attributes="member: 18280">I'm honestly pretty neutral about that, now that I am playing RCFG.&nbsp; I can convert a 4e module in about the same time as I can convert a 1e module, in about the same time as I can convert a MERP module, etc.&nbsp; The label no longer matters.My point was that the position re: earlier vs. newer editions was inconsistent.&nbsp; There seems, to me, to be a great desire to be linked by name to the older game while disparaging both it and those who enjoy it.&nbsp; AFAICT, there is an unspoken argument in the undercurrent of this thread, in effect, &quot;Prefering older editions is an implicit slam against 4e&quot;.IMHO, what get known as the &quot;sacred cows&quot; are often what may be considered the &quot;defining characteristics&quot;.&nbsp; When you remove the defining characteristics, but retain the name, at best you dilute what that name means.My point was that it is this dilution of identity which, AFAICT and IMHO, is generally actually behind &quot;edition wars&quot;.&nbsp; If 4e had been called WOTCFG, I doubt there would have been enough volleys to consitute even a minor &quot;edition skirmish&quot;.I don't know about you, but I also get tired of &quot;It's new and improved!&nbsp; And also exactly the same!&quot;&nbsp; If every discussion of editions devolves from &quot;Look at all these exciting changes!&quot; to &quot;No, nothing has changed&quot; if anyone at all suggests that they don't like some change, then how am I supposed to know what ideas are worth stealing?&nbsp; <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=";)" />RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5226058, member: 18280"] I'm honestly pretty neutral about that, now that I am playing RCFG. I can convert a 4e module in about the same time as I can convert a 1e module, in about the same time as I can convert a MERP module, etc. The label no longer matters. My point was that the position re: earlier vs. newer editions was inconsistent. There seems, to me, to be a great desire to be linked by name to the older game while disparaging both it and those who enjoy it. AFAICT, there is an unspoken argument in the undercurrent of this thread, in effect, "Prefering older editions is an implicit slam against 4e". IMHO, what get known as the "sacred cows" are often what may be considered the "defining characteristics". When you remove the defining characteristics, but retain the name, at best you dilute what that name means. My point was that it is this dilution of identity which, AFAICT and IMHO, is generally actually behind "edition wars". If 4e had been called WOTCFG, I doubt there would have been enough volleys to consitute even a minor "edition skirmish". I don't know about you, but I also get tired of "It's new and improved! And also exactly the same!" If every discussion of editions devolves from "Look at all these exciting changes!" to "No, nothing has changed" if anyone at all suggests that they don't like some change, then how am I supposed to know what ideas are worth stealing? ;) RC [/QUOTE]

Verification