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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 4891248" data-attributes="member: 177">Okay, let me see if I can address this...First off, as I noted earlier - all posts are made in the context of the boards and their history.  That history as an effect upon perceptions.  In drawing distinctions based on time, you're implicitly (for some folks explicitly) drawing distinctions based upon editions.  There has been so much edition warring here recently, that anything that looks like the duck is going to be seen as the duck right quick.  You can't really blame anyone for that now.  You are going to have to live with it.Thus, the way to discuss the various aspects of the earlier editions is, in fact, to not worry so much about it having been part of an earlier edition.  You can say, "I like gaming where the GM isn't worried so much about logical consistency or ecology, and is more interested in putting interesting tactical combinations in the dungeon" without setting off any edition-war based alarms, because the discussion isn't about editions.  It is about adventure design.  What edition or year the adventure design was done in is irrelevant to the discussion.  I can do that kind of adventure design in any edition!The same applies for each of the various things people try to put under the NS/OS umbrellas - adventure design, GM/Player interaction style, mechanical structure, and roleplaying style.  Ultimately, the age of the element is not nearly so important as the element itself, right?If you must classify, don't classify based on time, but instead based on what you're doing in the game.  You can have classes of adventure design, and mechanical structure, that you can then mix and match.  Go for classification based on structure and intended function, rather than history, and you are unlikely to set off the same alarms.On a personal note - so many people have 'fessed up to using so many supposedly "new school" elements back in the 1970s that the historical classification seems outright false, to me - that is the basis of my "false dichotomy" statements.</blockquote>

Verification