Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8478992" data-attributes="member: 82106">Lets bury the whole &quot;logical fallacy talk&quot;, we have different opinions and viewpoints. I'm not making a strawman or anything like that, I'm just pointing out what I see. Of course my interpretation of what you are saying may differ from yours, but that doesn't make either one of us guilty of anything more than less than 100% effective communication. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />So, yes, its fine to say that you PREFER a version of, say, D&amp;D, that hews closer to whichever version you consider 'canonical'. Nobody here, surely not me, is going to insult anyone's preferences. I prefer a different version of it, neither is right or wrong, and I don't think creative people are beholden to the specific sentiments of one audience over another. Commercial considerations may dictate with a product as big as D&amp;D what gets published of course.Other than that, what would be the point of new editions of things if they don't change anything, if they don't grow the concept and go on to new stuff? You can keep playing 1e D&amp;D, or 3.5e D&amp;D, there is nothing threatening about, say 4e D&amp;D to that. It just represents someone else's preferences. I can also tell you that in MY mind, it was pretty conscious of its roots, paid a lot of homage to them, and produced a lot of the good parts of older edition play. Now, maybe some rehashes of things are worse than the original. Its certainly no law that everything is improved when it is revisited. Just that its not an objective measurement. Some people probably love OWoD (ugh!) and others love the current iteration, and maybe there's disagreements. Thats cool.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8478992, member: 82106"] Lets bury the whole "logical fallacy talk", we have different opinions and viewpoints. I'm not making a strawman or anything like that, I'm just pointing out what I see. Of course my interpretation of what you are saying may differ from yours, but that doesn't make either one of us guilty of anything more than less than 100% effective communication. ;) So, yes, its fine to say that you PREFER a version of, say, D&D, that hews closer to whichever version you consider 'canonical'. Nobody here, surely not me, is going to insult anyone's preferences. I prefer a different version of it, neither is right or wrong, and I don't think creative people are beholden to the specific sentiments of one audience over another. Commercial considerations may dictate with a product as big as D&D what gets published of course. Other than that, what would be the point of new editions of things if they don't change anything, if they don't grow the concept and go on to new stuff? You can keep playing 1e D&D, or 3.5e D&D, there is nothing threatening about, say 4e D&D to that. It just represents someone else's preferences. I can also tell you that in MY mind, it was pretty conscious of its roots, paid a lot of homage to them, and produced a lot of the good parts of older edition play. Now, maybe some rehashes of things are worse than the original. Its certainly no law that everything is improved when it is revisited. Just that its not an objective measurement. Some people probably love OWoD (ugh!) and others love the current iteration, and maybe there's disagreements. Thats cool. [/QUOTE]

Verification