Obryn
Hero
That's not what I'm arguing. Here; I'll quote myself.But, of course, it would be disingenious (at best) for you to claim that there is an obvious objective difference between some kinds of role-playing, but not between others when it doesn't suit your position.
Either the "rules of the game" create an objective difference in the role-playing experience or they do not. If they do, then it is fair to say that the rules of one edition create an objective difference in role-playing experience. If they do not, then Monopoly is as much of an rpg as D&D.
Yours Truly said:As I read it - like I read it before - he's saying that there's some objective measure by which one way of playing an elf is better than another way of playing an elf, and that you are blind to these obvious, objective differences.
Wouldn't you agree there's a substantive difference between an "objective difference" (which is inarguably the case) and "objective superiority" (which is arguable at best)?
I'm not arguing against the former. I'm arguing against his implication of the latter. Differences are great - it's how you decide on your preferences. Not everybody likes the same thing, and that's wonderful. RPGs are (or should be) a big tent where lots of different people play lots of different games.
When someone expands their preferences to be objective, that's where I take issue.
When you take it completely out of context of the rest of his posts, maybe.Of course, ByronD didn't say that "kids with towels on their shoulders" were oobjectively worse, he said they were objectively different and didn't have "a similar view" of roleplaying compared to him.
Maybe.
But given the aforementioned tee-ball analogy in a separate thread, and his recent posting history (general theme: "4e is for those who can't handle the pressure of 3e"), this is my take on what he was saying.
-O