Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Joshua Randall" data-source="post: 9563034" data-attributes="member: 7737">Yes. But wrongness has never mattered in the edition wars. Just like in a real war, the objective is to defeat the enemy by any means necessary.<h3>Inter arma enim silent leges</h3>Yes. Very seldom has any edition of D&D been critiqued on its merits as a game, as a work of the written word, as an entrant into the Forge-y GNS crucible (the latter of which, I’m going to toss off without proof: 4e absolutely should be considered).No. Instead various D&Ds or D&D-alikes are critiqued for their marketing, their politics, their sales, and their perceptions by internet culture (which, let us not forget, is a tiny tiny fraction of the entire game-buying populace). All of these topics are valid and (in the past were) interesting, but they are also stale well trodden ground. To continue the war analogy: all of these topics are the trenches carved in the earth with a field of the dead in between them. No significant advances in those fields can be made. Only more senseless death.Well put.Part of this, “the so-called critic still claims a victory nonetheless”, is part of our degraded internet influenced culture in general. No one enters an argument (in the classic sense) with the goal to uncover truth or to test one’s (or the other’s!) beliefs against evidence. No one enters an argument open to the possibility of being wrong, of having one’s mind changed. No one enters an argument and thinks, “I believe and accept that the other person has good faith reasons for his or her beliefs, and together we will scrutinize what evidence there is.”None of that happens, particularly with internet slap fights about which version of elf-gaming is the most bestest. Arguments are entered in order to destroy the opposition by any means necessary.<h3>Inter arma enim silent leges</h3></blockquote>

Verification