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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 4898407" data-attributes="member: 59082">Yes, very true I think. Developmentally there is something about that age, from 9-12ish, that is truly special in terms of imagination. At around nine kids often really "wake up", but for a few years they are still pre-pubescent, so not as "distracted" by relationships and sexuality. Nice thoughtful response, btw. I'll go further into it.I would amend this slightly and say the golden age is when one discovers one's own tastes and really begins to explore them. It isn't simply a matter of entertainment but creative output.Yup. To some degree I think this adult cynicism/jadedness is why people take the "nostalgic turn". I think a lot of folks in their 30s return to gaming or hobbying of any kind, partially because they might be more settled down (career and family) and want something for themselves. Yes and no. I don't think you can recreate the same magic for the work of others but you can create a new (and greater, I would argue) magic through your own creativity. Speaking for myself I used to devour fantasy novel after fantasy novel, from about the age of 8 until 17 or 18. I continued to read but at a more moderate pace. Now, in my mid-30s, I have a hard time finish a fantasy novel, partially because I can't find many that really interest me. But I do work on my own novel, and I get the same sense of magic and wonder from my own work that I used to get from the work of others.Chris Claremont and Gary Gygax were two of the Wise Elders of my youth. I'm not saying that I don't respect them anymore, I do, but they used to be gods. Now they are men, creative men who I respect but don't worship.Well, exactly. Good point. I have had the same experience. Very true.I just love it when someone assumes they know my motives for writing something, as if they know better than I what I really think (that's actually a subtle form of aggression, btw). In this case you are wrong, Piratecat. This sort of "interesting discussion" is exactly what I had hoped would result from my post, not arguments. This makes sense to me. You're sounding rather nostalgic, amigo! <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Fair enough. While I totally take what you are saying at face value I will also echo what someone said later on, that one can be nostalgic for something that they didn't directly experience. I was born in 1973 and one of my favorite periods of music is the 1967ish to 1977ish experimental jazz, fusion, jazz-funk, etc...and there is a touch of nostalgia for me, a yearning for the energy that brought about such amazing music. The same actually goes for the 70s and early 80s of RPGs. Now I was into D&D as of the early 80s, and I have nostalgia for some of that, but I also have a sense of it for what I wasn't aware of at the time, of the feeling folks must of had of being in the early years of the "RPG explosion." I hear you but I am not using nostalgia dismissively. I just think it is a factor, a major one in most cases, and that there is nothing wrong with that. I would hate to write off anything but the worst Hallmark movies as "mere emotionality," being a rather emotional fellow myself. Actually, I disagree with what I feel you are implying, that irrationality/feeling/emotionality is pejorative and lesser than rationality/thinking. I see them as two different beasts, like apples and oranges or demons and devils. If anything I am saying that in addition to any intellectual, rational, conscious reasons one has for being into Old School, there is an aesthetic, affective, and yes, emotional aspect that often (usually?) relates to nostalgia. It is not a big deal to me, just a topic of interest. And I will agree that I may be "dead wrong" with regards to you and others with a similar stance, but maybe not some.OK, OK, but you're really attacking a strawman here, Korgoth. I hear your frustration, but you've got the wrong guy, man! <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Ah, you're the one who said it. Good point.Yeah, I hear that. What bothers me about the Edition War is not people disagreeing or touting a particular system--or even dismissing each other's preferences--it is that we can't discuss this stuff. We can't say what you said above, about JRRNeiklot's vs. your perspective on AD&D (I agree with you, btw, but that is part of the charm of AD&D!). Why not? Because people get hot under the collar. So what? Well, exactly. What's wrong with a bit of hotness under the collar? I'm not trying to inspire hotness under the collar, but I tend to like discussing things that inspire hotness under the collar--and I find it interesting if we can do so without getting hot under the collar. That is where some really interesting conversation comes about, like in this thread. Imagine, for instance, getting advocates of the six or so major variations of D&D together and trying to come up with a variant edition that included the best of all. It would be like the United Nations, I suppose, and thus likely get nowhere, but be very interesting to try.So my point is, rather than shy away from the Edition War, let's talk about it but in a civil way. And if someone gets upset, that's okay. We can talk about that to, work it out until it isn't a problem anymore so we can get back on task. I would love to start a thread entitled "What are the best aspects of each edition of D&D and how can we fuse them into an Uber Edition?" But it would probably be deemed as trollish and/or devolve into bickering. I'm not sure who this was directed at, but I agree with you. There is no need to justify one's edition preference. Yup, and maybe it isn't necessary. Or rather, maybe naked "objective truth" (whatever that is) can only be experienced when clothed in subjectivity. At the least it gives it flavor.</blockquote>

Verification