Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9702742" data-attributes="member: 6790260">The bigger issue is when people project this style onto the whole of the game.When they demand that the rules cater to them, and don't care whether they cater to anything else (or, more commonly, get annoyed when anything is provided to anything else).When they treat any form of novelty or innovation as a "betrayal" of D&D, as simply not even being "D&D" at all--and thus what came before has to be almost totally fixed in stone, never changed, no matter how much better we might understand game design or the consequences of past designers' choices, no matter how much the interests of the gaming public at large might differ today from what they were half a century ago.And that specific thing is the exhausting conservatism the thread's title is all about. Perhaps being a bit blunt, that feeling that your style is "under attack" often is part and parcel of said conservatism. That doesn't mean nobody ever bad-mouths classic D&D, some people absolutely do do that, but we are very much in the diametric antithesis of an anti-classical era, the in-vogue thing is to rip HARD into anything that even has the vaguest whiff of novelty to it.Tradition is not inherently bad; but tradition is not inherently good either. To assert the former is chronological snobbery. I've called the latter "genealogical snobbery".</blockquote>