Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5472257" data-attributes="member: 18280">Mercurius, take a look at my first post in this thread.Being offended does not mean that one is defensive.&nbsp; But I will give you the benefit of the doubt.In your previous thread, I suggested that you try to establish what the essence of D&amp;D is.&nbsp; This thread is exactly what I said you should do -- try to establish what the essence of D&amp;D is so that we can determine whether or not there is a universal &quot;soul of D&amp;D&quot; or &quot;essence of D&amp;D&quot;.&nbsp; I am hardly going to be defensive about your taking my suggestion!I don't take it as a given that there is a universal &quot;essence of D&amp;D&quot;, and your previous threads have made me increasingly skeptical of that concept.&nbsp; Honestly, Umbran's post upthread pointed out the problems with your construct, from a logical standpoint, and as Umbran and I butt heads more often than agree, that we both see the same thing here means something to me.BUT I do agree that 4e is D&amp;D, so it is also clear to me that I see a strong enough &quot;core essence&quot; for me personally between editions that I cannot entirely dismiss your construct either.&nbsp; Not without further exploration of what this core essence might be, at any rate.If you are going to enter into this honestly, you should probably put aside the presupposition that there is one as well.&nbsp; Not because you desire to be dishonest, but because you increase the likelihood of observer bias if you do not.&nbsp;Being agnostic is, IMHO, the best way to begin to explore a premise of this nature.&nbsp; This is not because I am afraid of universality, but because I want to reach a viable conclusion.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5472257, member: 18280"] Mercurius, take a look at my first post in this thread. Being offended does not mean that one is defensive. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. In your previous thread, I suggested that you try to establish what the essence of D&D is. This thread is exactly what I said you should do -- try to establish what the essence of D&D is so that we can determine whether or not there is a universal "soul of D&D" or "essence of D&D". I am hardly going to be defensive about your taking my suggestion! I don't take it as a given that there is a universal "essence of D&D", and your previous threads have made me increasingly skeptical of that concept. Honestly, Umbran's post upthread pointed out the problems with your construct, from a logical standpoint, and as Umbran and I butt heads more often than agree, that we both see the same thing here means something to me. BUT I do agree that 4e is D&D, so it is also clear to me that I see a strong enough "core essence" [B][I]for me personally[/I][/B] between editions that I cannot entirely dismiss your construct either. Not without further exploration of what this core essence might be, at any rate. If you are going to enter into this honestly, you should probably put aside the presupposition that there is one as well. Not because you desire to be dishonest, but because you increase the likelihood of observer bias if you do not. Being agnostic is, IMHO, the best way to begin to explore a premise of this nature. This is not because I am afraid of universality, but because I want to reach a viable conclusion. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification