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="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5474157" data-attributes="member: 18280">I don't think so.  It is inherent in the idea that there is a shared experience.  All Dannyalcatraz did was make explicit that assumption.And there is value in doing so for at least three reasons:(1)  Any investigation into whether or not all roads really do lead to Rome must begin with whether or not there is a Rome to be led to.(2)  Blind acceptance of the idea that there is a "core D&D experience" leads eventually to a point where someone's concept of the D&D experience, because it differs from that accepted "core D&D experience", is wrong.Note please that I do not think that this is the intent of Mercurius' threads on the topic, but it is a very real potential outcome.(3)  Blind acceptance of the idea that there is a "core D&D experience" of which ever edition of D&D partakes, regardless of other qualifiers, leads eventually to a point where an edition's concept of the D&D experience, no matter how much it differs from one's understanding of the "D&D experience", is right.Note please that I do not think that this is the intent of Mercurius' threads on the topic, but it is a very real potential outcome.  And it may be part of what Mearls' blog post was attempting to establish, if there is a major shake-up coming.I am not sure that it is impossible to do, although I am skeptical of that possibility.  That I consider 4e D&D, despite how I define D&D, and despite the magnitude of change I believe exists, makes me uncertain that there is not a core experience, even if it is not something I can articulate.  That's something I am still pondering.Certainly, however, if one postulates a "core D&D experience" (and wishes to convince others of the same), the onus lies on that person, and not the skeptics.And that is another value, to me at least, of the skeptical position.  Without the skeptical position being articulated, it is hard to determine whether that position disproves the original premise, or merely renders it unproven.In this case, I would say it remains unproven.R - glad Lanefan's a good sport about this - C</blockquote>

Verification