Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5470186" data-attributes="member: 59082">Danny, we're getting nowhere. I keep on saying that we're talking about two things, one the &quot;D&amp;D experience/core essence&quot; and two &quot;D&amp;D the game&quot; which is definable; you keep on wanting to reduce the first to the second, when I'm saying that they are two different things, categories even. You may not be refuting the existence of &quot;love&quot; but you certainly seem to want to quantify it in a way that I'm saying is not really possible or particularly useful. We can talk about it, write poetry about it, but any definition is inherently limited and less than the actual experience.I haven't explained &quot;D&amp;Dness&quot; because I don't have to; well actually, I have explained it ad nauseum, but you are not accepting my explanation because you feel that it is too vague. As I've said, it is a felt-experience, both quite personal and with a universal quality that allows us to experience something together. In the same sense that the experience of &quot;love&quot; is extremely personal but also universal.I'm perfectly happy to see that the D&amp;D experience is whatever the individual wants to say that it is, thus it is personal. But I also think there is a universal quality that ties together each of our individual experiences. You may not feel that 4E taps into the D&amp;D experience to you, but I think there is a strong relationship between what I experience playing 4E and what you experience when you play your edition of choice, strong enough to say that we're both playing D&amp;D, tapping into the &quot;core essence&quot; of D&amp;Dness.I don't understand why this sort of unifying gesture is such a problem to some people. All it is saying is that &quot;Hey, we prefer different things, different editions of D&amp;D even, but we're all playing D&amp;D!&quot;I'm not sure where we can go from here except rehash the same thing in different forms.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 5470186, member: 59082"] Danny, we're getting nowhere. I keep on saying that we're talking about two things, one the "D&D experience/core essence" and two "D&D the game" which [I]is[/I] definable; you keep on wanting to reduce the first to the second, when I'm saying that they are two different things, categories even. You may not be refuting the existence of "love" but you certainly seem to want to quantify it in a way that I'm saying is not really possible or particularly useful. We can talk about it, write poetry about it, but any definition is inherently limited and less than the actual experience. I haven't explained "D&Dness" because I don't have to; well actually, I [I]have [/I]explained it ad nauseum, but you are not accepting my explanation because you feel that it is too vague. As I've said, it is a felt-experience, both quite personal and with a universal quality that allows us to experience something together. In the same sense that the experience of "love" is extremely personal but also universal. I'm perfectly happy to see that the D&D experience is whatever the individual wants to say that it is, thus it is personal. But I also think there is a universal quality that ties together each of our individual experiences. You may not feel that 4E taps into the D&D experience to you, but I think there is a strong relationship between what I experience playing 4E and what you experience when you play your edition of choice, strong enough to say that we're both playing D&D, tapping into the "core essence" of D&Dness. I don't understand why this sort of unifying gesture is such a problem to some people. All it is saying is that "Hey, we prefer different things, different editions of D&D even, but we're all playing D&D!" I'm not sure where we can go from here except rehash the same thing in different forms. [/QUOTE]

Verification