Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4925816" data-attributes="member: 22779">Hrm, I didn't know that they renamed SkyDome.&nbsp; Damn, I haven't been home in a long time.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />But, do you think anyone might not call it a dome?&nbsp; Even though the official name has changed, do you think anyone now thinks that the Jay's shouldn't play there anymore?&nbsp; That it's no longer functional for playing baseball?This is the second time you've brought this up.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; It has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not 4e is &quot;really&quot; D&amp;D.&nbsp; Then again, where you could pick up a new print 1e or 2e phb in the last ten years or so?There is a difference though between saying, &quot;I don't like edition X&quot; and &quot;edition X should not even be considered part of the game&quot;.&nbsp; I'm a big tent kind of guy.&nbsp; I look at the fact that 3e shares almost nothing mechanically with 1e or 2e and still have no problems thinking of it as D&amp;D.&nbsp; 4e is far closer to 3e mechanically than 3e is to 1e, so, again, I have no problems thinking of it as D&amp;D.&nbsp; Then again, I have no problems thinking of OSRIC or BFRPG or Pathfinder as D&amp;D either.&nbsp; They're all class/level based fantasy systems where you go somewhere, kill something and take it's lunch money.&nbsp; Close enough for me.To me, trying to redefine the term D&amp;D so that it excludes a particular edition is only done for the purpose of trying to claim superiority.&nbsp; The only motivation is political (ie one of power).&nbsp; There's no real benefit to excluding one or another edition that I can see.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4925816, member: 22779"] Hrm, I didn't know that they renamed SkyDome. Damn, I haven't been home in a long time. :) But, do you think anyone might not call it a dome? Even though the official name has changed, do you think anyone now thinks that the Jay's shouldn't play there anymore? That it's no longer functional for playing baseball? This is the second time you've brought this up. Why? It has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not 4e is "really" D&D. Then again, where you could pick up a new print 1e or 2e phb in the last ten years or so? There is a difference though between saying, "I don't like edition X" and "edition X should not even be considered part of the game". I'm a big tent kind of guy. I look at the fact that 3e shares almost nothing mechanically with 1e or 2e and still have no problems thinking of it as D&D. 4e is far closer to 3e mechanically than 3e is to 1e, so, again, I have no problems thinking of it as D&D. Then again, I have no problems thinking of OSRIC or BFRPG or Pathfinder as D&D either. They're all class/level based fantasy systems where you go somewhere, kill something and take it's lunch money. Close enough for me. To me, trying to redefine the term D&D so that it excludes a particular edition is only done for the purpose of trying to claim superiority. The only motivation is political (ie one of power). There's no real benefit to excluding one or another edition that I can see. [/QUOTE]

Verification