Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quasqueton" data-source="post: 1791563" data-attributes="member: 3854">It was a smartass comment to show a point. As I said earlier, it seems that folks cannot make a complimentary statement about the older editions of the game without at least insinuating that something is wrong or bad about the new edition of the game.Saying, "D&D prior to 3e was a good game," at least insinuates that D&D since 3e is not a good game. You could have said it as I corrected, "D&D prior to 3e was a good game, too." Or you could have said, "D&D in all its editions is a good game." Or all kinds of other ways. But you chose to explicitly exclude 3e from the description "good game." Might have been a communication mistake, or it might be that you specifically wanted to insult the new edition.Me, I loved AD&D1 in its time. I love D&D3 now. (Never quite felt anything for AD&D2.)Unfortunately, some old grognards take any exclaimed affection for D&D3 as an insult to AD&D1. And too often, those grognards express their love for AD&D1 in a negative-D&D3 way.Is a 2004 Ford Mustang a better automobile than a 1973 Ford Mustang? In all material ways, yes it is. But that does not make the '73 a "bad" car. Nor does a love for the old model necessitate a hatred of the newer, and vice versa.Quasqueton</blockquote>