NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5458964" data-attributes="member: 59082">If you re-read what I wrote, I did not dismiss this feeling as an affectation, but that if it was taken beyond affectation it came across as "obstinate defiance," as Aldarc put it. Or maybe willful denial? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Do you go through the dictionary and cross off which definitions are wrong to you? The four definitions I listed are all ways that the term "Dungeons & Dragons" are commonly used; they have nothing to do with what I think is D&D, or what is "D&D to me."Scan through any English dictionary and you will find that a large number of words have multiple definitions with slightly to moderately different meanings. D&D is no different. As I've said elsewhere, the vast majority of non-gamers wouldn't know the difference between HERO fantasy and D&D; by their definition it is all D&D. This isn't an exact definition but it isn't "wrong" in the same way that calling a box of generic tissue Kleenex isn't "wrong."Well put. I find it ironic that this sort of thing is ignored or unnoticed by many who take issue with criticism over the "4E is not D&D" statement. As if the issue, the "problem," if you will, is only because some people refuse to respect such statements. My point has been that it is worthwhile to question what sort of interpersonal impact these sorts of statements make, beyond just "offending people that bend over backwards to find offense."My feeling is that people in general don't take enough responsibility and creativity for making the game their own, that there is enormous room and flexibility to take a given rules set--especially a D&D edition--and creating the kind of atmosphere and feel you want. If anything I would say that "4E is not D&D to me" is a baffling statement in that I don't see why it couldn't be made to be D&D to anyone. This is not to say that I think everyone should play and/or like 4E, not at all. Nor am I saying that everyone who says that "4E is not D&D to me" is lacking in creativity; actually, my sense is that many people who make such statements have bucketloads of creativity, but they simply seem unwilling to apply it to 4E. This is where I see "obstinate defiance come in." If one cannot make 4E be D&D to them, my sense is that they must have a rather finicky and narrow acceptance of what is D&D, or a "obstinate defiance" against 4E that prevents them from feeling how it, too, is D&D and can be played to feel like D&D with just a little flexibility of thinking.The James Bond analogy works, I think, because it illustrates how there can be very different takes to playing the character "James Bond" and they are still all James Bond. The statement "Daniel Craig is not James Bond to me" implies an unwillingness to be flexible, to embrace a different variation as valid. Sort of as if, if you look away, it won't exist...I mean, Lazenby wasn't my favorite Bond, nor was Dalton or Brosnan, but they were all James Bond, they all captured the character in different ways.That's the point: There's no one-size-fits-all take on James Bond. There is the "archetype" of James Bond, just as there is the archetype of D&D (or Rome), and then there are different, unique, embodiments of that archetype. Thanks, I'll take a look. And I was honestly curious, not mocking you!EDIT: Your hyperlink took me to page 13 which only has a couple very short posts by you. Can you provide a direct link or, better yet, a post #?</blockquote>

Verification