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: 5469646" data-attributes="member: 59082">OK, I apologize for missing that you were talking about the last phrase and not last sentence. Even so, aren't you being a little extreme? I mean, yes, that phrase is factually incorrect, but only if you're talking about massive change. And even then, it may not change what he's talking about - which is the experience of fun and adventure with friends D&D-style, sitting around the game table.I would suggest that we're really talking about two different things: <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">What I was calling the "D&D experience," or what Mearls called the "core essence of D&D" - that is not dependent upon any specific rules configuration or idea or concept, but merely and only dependent upon the experience of the individuals involved.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A more technical definition of what is and is not D&D, as exemplified by my primary/secondary/tertiary framework.</li> </ol>So what I hear you doing is continually changing conversation of the first to the second, but if I'm talking about the first it makes little sense to shift to the second and say something to the effect of "That definition isn't precise enough." So what I've been talking about as the D&D experience, or what Mearls was discussing in his article, is not an attempt to define D&D in a technical or factual sense, but to describe and explore the "core experience" of it, the essential quality--as experienced by the individual and different D&D groups.  I tend to agree with you here. Actually, the situation reminds me of a situation at the school I teach at. The faculty enacted a change to the evening schedule in the dormitories that the students didn't like; the year is now two-thirds over and the students are still complaining about it and pushing the boundaries. Now the faculty could do one of three things: 1) They could cave in and go back to the students' preferred schedule; 2) they could stubbornly hold their ground no matter what the students say; and 3) They can try to look at the situation impartially and combine the best of both worlds for a New and Improved schedule next year.This sort of thing happens all the time at this school (and, I would guess, others), where faculty feel caught between either "giving in" or "holding ground" which creates a polarization with the student body that I feel is unnecessary. What is often missing is a willingness and ability to dialectically evolve, to take thesis and antithesis and come up with a (superior) synthesis.The rift created in the wake of 4E is unparalleled in D&D history; I don't care what some have said, the fallout from 3E was nowhere near as bad. Actually, it was so overwhelmingly positive that the 2E holdouts seemed like little mice squeaking in a round of applause. And the fact that the gripes and squabbles have continued for three years means something.I like 4E, but I think it is a seriously flawed game. I actually think that WotC should be pushing 5E development, and not for 4-5 years down the line but 2012 or 2013 at the latest. And I think they should be doing so in such a way that they can somehow integrate the best of 3E and 4E and bring something new to be table. And, perhaps most of all, I think they should get the feedback of those--like the folks at EN World--that care the most about the game, but at the very same time not be hostage to the loudest complaints echoing across the internet.Good luck, WotC!</blockquote>

Verification