Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5087569" data-attributes="member: 80487">Thank you! That is at least rational and related to the question as it was put (not so much what I had in mind, but that's my own miscommunication). It's a circular argument of a sort, in that it is privileging any old thing WotC happened to choose -- not at all that particular one on any merit. It is indeed the practical fact of the matter, though!I disagree with your unreasonable demands for unreasoning assent, especially when I disagree with the supposed Truths. Your haughty dismissals of questions certainly tempted responses more in keeping with your unpleasant tenor. On point after point, you not only offered no logic but did not at all address the matter at hand. The arch manner of avoidance was of the sort used to imply, "You are stupid for asking such a question." If you truly thought that would be helpful in the furtherance of understanding, then I am curious to learn why. It is simply the nature of things that sometimes a statement "isn't even wrong" without some logical context. Something may seem a perfectly self-evident axiom to you while being -- at best, perhaps! -- perfectly obscure to someone else (perhaps less intellectually agile). At worst, it may seem "obviously" something other than what you mean. So, making explicit some of the links in your chain of reasoning may be a big help.Well, of course you are free to say that -- or that using but 58.33% of any 'D&D' edition, one would still be playing Palladium Fantasy. It all depends on the definition, and you are -- as far as I see -- simply appealing to yourself as "authority". Maybe  you can see how far that bull is as binding as the electrons it's printed on.Practical interoperability, however, is quite another matter. It's something one can test. Are X and Y "the same game" to the extent that it's no problem to mix up character sheets? Are they different to the extent that a scenario for one requires "conversion" to the other? How much does that require familiarity with both?How much more or less convenient is it than a collision with, say, Chivalry & Sorcery or RuneQuest?This really has only a little to do with the matter of 'storytelling' but all considered I think that little pretty notable. With 4e, I don't think it's just something tacked on as an afterthought in DMG2. I see a lot of care in the design, and above all an unprecedented -- in the annals of 'editions' -- willingness to dump D&D traditions that would just be baggage weighing down the movement in a different direction.</blockquote>

Verification