Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 1407864" data-attributes="member: 537">This is what Urbannen said:This is nonsense. First, D&amp;D is whatever you make it out to be. The ruleset doesn't force any particular interpretation you want to use, or prohibit you from making it all deep and meaningful and fra-fra, if that's your taste. 1E may be deep and meaningful and fra-fra because it had elves and dwarves (and monks), but that doesn't mean 3E can't be deep and meaningful either. Second, the idea that a polyglot cultural focus means you can't &quot;communicate with the collective thought of your ancestors&quot; implies that those aspects of your ancestors' thoughts that require a limited cultural focus, are more important than those that don't. Since I believe that the aspects of my ancestors' thoughts that are most important are those that apply regardless of cultural focus, I think this too is a nonsense.In other words: sharp sticks, foul dungeons, and big dragons are universal.Fine by me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hong, post: 1407864, member: 537"] This is what Urbannen said: This is nonsense. First, D&D is whatever you make it out to be. The ruleset doesn't force any particular interpretation you want to use, or prohibit you from making it all deep and meaningful and fra-fra, if that's your taste. 1E may be deep and meaningful and fra-fra because it had elves and dwarves (and monks), but that doesn't mean 3E can't be deep and meaningful either. Second, the idea that a polyglot cultural focus means you can't "communicate with the collective thought of your ancestors" implies that those aspects of your ancestors' thoughts that require a limited cultural focus, are more important than those that don't. Since I believe that the aspects of my ancestors' thoughts that are most important are those that apply regardless of cultural focus, I think this too is a nonsense. In other words: sharp sticks, foul dungeons, and big dragons are universal. Fine by me. [/QUOTE]

Verification