Ah... that implies that you have the experience of actually doing it both ways... which you don't or you'd agree it's just not the same... because they just aren't lol. again, iPod Beethoven vs. Symphony Beethoven.
I have, and I do prefer running in person. Again, false equivalence to a straw argument. That said, an iPod, while sonically inferior to a symphony, is much more portable. Likewise, online games, while not as good as in person games, are easier to organize. Quality and convenience are both valuable.
Toys R Us is an example, and yes, you could get those things there. Before your time.
You could get them there during my time too. I never said you couldn’t, I said it was a terrible place to do so. And it was. It had terrible selection and terrible customer assistance, which along with poor management decisions that led to a massive debt were the actual reasons it went out of business.
And ever hear of Barnes & Noble?
Yes, and you’ll find the very quote you said this in response to, I mentioned “book stores in a pinch.”
Ah wait... you mention your Amazon (I have no clue what DrivethruRPG is though). It's the digital curse that destroyed the places where these books were sold. Your hobby stores are next btw. Just the way things are now.
Probably, yes. That’s what happens in a capitalist market.
God, that just goes to show how stupid kids are these days lol. Um, I started playing when I was 10. Understood the concept just fine, because I had an imagination. Didn't need a digital interface to make something for me as I used my mind. When I was a little older... my younger brothers and the younger siblings of my friends also picked it up JUST fine. And spun off into their own groups. Imagine that.... we must have all been child progenies, if these tabletop RPG's are SOOOO difficult to learn and warp one's head around... can't imagine any child wondering what a knight, mage, or dragon looks like on his own...
Actually kids generally have a very easy time grasping RPGs. Roleplaying is already how they do most of their play, so adding game mechanics to that roleplay is an easy step for them. It’s adults who usually have a hard time grokking D&D until they actually see it played or play it themselves.
Here's your No true Scotsman fallacy. Having actually played both D&D and AD&D... there were some rule additions 'tis true. But nothing compared to AD&D versus where we are now (5, or 1,000 who knows). People adopted the new game because it was actually playable. They adapted. Just like you do today with your digital lifestyle. You know what you know, and you like it. Doesn't mean it's better than the past. Or less complicated. People still have the choice, and since they're lazy, everyone does the digital as it's more convenient. Again, doesn't make it better... just more convenient.
I have at no point in this conversation said it was better. That’s a matter of personal taste. Also, I don’t think “no true Scotsman” means what you think it means.
For someone so "intelligent" you need to read what you are writing and understand how it will be read by others. You have totally backtracked. I originally made the point that the older games, being less complicated, were better, and enjoyed by more people. To which you disagreed and said the game is now more popular than ever because of the digital way it is played, and is also actually less complicated.
I think if you go back and actually read my posts, you’ll find that I never said the game was more popular than ever. I said that it is on the middle of a massive resurgence and that it’s more popular than it was 10 years ago. I also said that I find the premise that it is less popular now dubious, but being unprepared to argue against that point, and finding it unnecessary to do so in order to support my claim that the game is in the middle of a massive resurgence, I conceded that point and continued my argument under the assumption that the claim that it is less popular now than it was when it was first released was accurate. And AD&D was more complex than any edition since 3rd. At least in terms of basic systems. I did concede that supplement books can increase the complexity of modern editions beyond AD&D levels.
That last post... try and use all your debate-club tactics, but there was no distortion as the evidence is all above.
What distortion of evidence did I ever claim was going on?
And I've been engaging you... if you remember what you write then my responses are based upon what you write.
No, they’re not. Your responses have mainly been based on unfounded inferences of intent not present in what I actually wrote, as I’ve been trying to demonstrate. You’re arguing against points you’re assuming I’m making like “digital is better than traditional media” and “D&D is more popular than ever” and that I’ve clearly never played classic D&D or played in on-person games, none of which are true, or present in my arguments at all.
That's engagement. I'm impressed you actually paid attention in debate class and philosophy class. But again, youth interferes and something gets lost in the application on knowledge due to lack of experience.
When you can’t counter my arguments, you attack my character.
I'm very happy (and jealous) you live in such a bubble where literally everyone around you at home and work plays the game. That is beyond rare and the exception to the rule of modern life.
It’s really not the exception you think it is. D&D, and roleplaying games in general, are, as I said, very popular right now. They’re mainstream again. Especially among young adults, who are the people I most often associate with. Interesting that in the age bracket you are in, the one that was playing D&D back when it was apparently in the peak of its popularity, are so difficult to find groups for, when the crowd who grew up on the inferior versions are still playing and loving them quite regularly.
I really do thank you--- again--- for introducing me to the drive-through RPG site.
Sure, no problem.
