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: 5468867" data-attributes="member: 59082">I have to run out the door in a few minutes so can't reply to everything, but I wanted to at least reply to a few.OK, fair enough. I disagreed (and still disagree) with their decision to remove PDFs of old stuff. What I was thinking "supporting older editions" to mean was coming out with new material. That wasn't my intent (sorry, Danny, if it came across that way).  Or maybe great minds....<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> An appeal to authority is a tactic whereby a weak argument is strengthened by appealing to someone else, rather than relying on its own merits. I felt like you were dismissing my post by calling it an appeal to authority, thereby dismissing it not on its own merits (or lack thereof) but because (you felt) it was an appeal to authority.  What surprises me is how people can read something negative into Mearls' article. I'm not saying that there wasn't a political, damage control element - maybe there was. But what's wrong with that? Shouldn't they be trying to extend the olive leaf? If you read the article without preconceived notions or with letting aside any gripes one might have with WotC, it is a pretty nice statement.  That's BS, Bryon, at least coming from me. I could give two rats asses what your preferences are or whether or not you agree with me; you seem to be missing the point. And I actually like discussing the merits and flaws of various editions of D&D. What bugs me is, as I think Umbran said, being jerks about our preferences and missing the forest--that we're all gamers, all D&D players (in this context)--for the trees (take your pick).The "big umbrella" approach doesn't negate differences, it just contextualizes them within a sense of larger agreement and community. We're all nerds on the bus, if you will!Fair enough. Again, what I thought was meant by "supporting older editions" was publishing new material, and no game company that I'm aware of--or at least very few--does that. But yeah, I agree about the PDFs. It was a bad PR move in a line of a bunch of bad PR moves that WotC seems particularly prone to making.Good point. I've often said that the worst culprit in the so-called edition war is when people claim that someone is starting an edition war when they're just talking about different editions in the same paragraph. But in terrms of "the problem," let's take that paragraph in Mearls' article that seemed to evoke so much controversy: What's to disagree with? And, more importantly, what impact does disagreeing with this sentiment create? If, for instance, I disagree with the notion in that last sentence, I'm effectively saying that specific rules, opinions, and game concepts and mechanics do change whether what anyone is playing in their basement is D&D or not. Do you see the problem with that perspective? In other words, why do I get to decide whether or not what you are playing is D&D? I don't.It is similar to the whole debate about the phrase "4E isn't D&D to me." If Bubba says that, he is basically saying to everyone that plays 4E that what they are playing is not D&D to Bubba. I mean, what's the point? What does that do? Of course Bubba has the right to say it, but what sort of impact does it have? I have the right to say "I hate heavy metal music", but if I say it on a forum where many people like heavy metal, what sort of shytstorm do you think I might stir up?I'm all for freedom of speech, but we also have to look at cause-and-effect.P.S. We can both agree that we're looking forward to 5E!</blockquote>

Verification