Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannager" data-source="post: 5469787" data-attributes="member: 73683">While I can understand the point you're trying to convey, the above bolded sentence isn't really true, regardless of what you believe. D&D is, in the legal sense, a property and collection of live trademarks registered and/or owned by WotC. Products and copy that make use of these trademarks can be said, objectively, to represent D&D. Products and copy that do not make use of these trademarks (or, more precisely, that would be prohibited from making use of these trademarks, can be said, objectively, to not represent D&D. This strikes me as a fairly reasonable way of defining what is and isn't D&D, and making its use universal would remove the ambiguity inherent in statements like "4e isn't D&D to me!" Rather, people would be forced to actually explain what they mean - something along the lines of "I find I am not able to sufficiently enjoy 4e because I believe Vancian casting is essential," - which allows us to have an actual discussion.Mearls is not putting that message out there to dangle previous edition support in front of you. That's pretty much never going to happen for a castle-load of good reasons. He's reminding people that we are, under the (fairly superficial) coat of edition-partisan paint, all D&D players and that we share that in common. When they're intended to provoke thought, words have value even without some kind of action attached to them (especially action that doesn't necessarily follow logically from the words, but is instead used as a talking point to make it appear as though an implied follow-through is not taking place, which is what we're seeing right now). Mearls' article is intended to provoke thought, not make promises.You need to put the idea of WotC offering support of older editions to bed. It's a wholly unreasonable set of demands to be making, and treating WotC as though they're somehow being negligent for not meeting those demands is akin to complaining that Microsoft refuses to produce new applications compatible with Windows 3.1.</blockquote>

Verification