Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5468898" data-attributes="member: 957">First, you spelled my name right on the first try, so kudos.&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=":)" />If I misread you, then my apologies.I certainly love discussing systems and enjoy debating.&nbsp; And I like standing my side, but I constantly draw the difference between discussing objective and subjective differences. But I get declared one of the &quot;jerks&quot; often enough, so I know that side.&nbsp; Sorry about that.I readily admit that there are plenty of &quot;WotC killed my dog when they made 4E&quot; types out there.&nbsp; But, there are also plenty of &quot;I love 4E and can't stand that anyone would be critical or suggest that there are reasons for the divided marketplace.&quot;&nbsp; Both of those tones are in ample supply, both at large and in this thread in particular.There is not much acceptance of the &quot;we don't like 4E&quot; crowd from the &quot;we do&quot; crowd being displayed.&nbsp; And the same claim could be said in reverse.&nbsp; But if the pro-4E side wants peace, maybe starting with their own side would be the best first move.You called this very thread &quot;all roads lead to Rome, Redux&quot;.&nbsp; Do you see how that phrase in intself rejects the subjective view of people who find the experience of different editions radically different?&nbsp; Saying there are some common elements is one thing.&nbsp; But saying someone else can not look at 4E and not see what is, to them, &quot;dungeons and dragons&quot; is not an open or inclusive point of view.&nbsp; So, between tying it back to that claim on your part, and the overall tone of the pro-4e side in this thread, I took your position as being the way I described it.If I took ity wrong, I apologize.Is it now safe for me to conclude you respect the opinions of those who say 4E is not D&amp;D to them and it does not ever get to Rome as far as they are concerned?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5468898, member: 957"] First, you spelled my name right on the first try, so kudos. :) If I misread you, then my apologies. I certainly love discussing systems and enjoy debating. And I like standing my side, but I constantly draw the difference between discussing objective and subjective differences. But I get declared one of the "jerks" often enough, so I know that side. Sorry about that. I readily admit that there are plenty of "WotC killed my dog when they made 4E" types out there. But, there are also plenty of "I love 4E and can't stand that anyone would be critical or suggest that there are reasons for the divided marketplace." Both of those tones are in ample supply, both at large and in this thread in particular. There is not much acceptance of the "we don't like 4E" crowd from the "we do" crowd being displayed. And the same claim could be said in reverse. But if the pro-4E side wants peace, maybe starting with their own side would be the best first move. You called this very thread "all roads lead to Rome, Redux". Do you see how that phrase in intself rejects the subjective view of people who find the experience of different editions radically different? Saying there are some common elements is one thing. But saying someone else can not look at 4E and not see what is, to them, "dungeons and dragons" is not an open or inclusive point of view. So, between tying it back to that claim on your part, and the overall tone of the pro-4e side in this thread, I took your position as being the way I described it. If I took ity wrong, I apologize. Is it now safe for me to conclude you respect the opinions of those who say 4E is not D&D to them and it does not ever get to Rome as far as they are concerned? [/QUOTE]

Verification