Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6241312" data-attributes="member: 59082">Interesting post. I work at a small private school in which we're always tinkering with not only the curriculum but our governance structure (one of the perks of being a private school). I've found that over the five+ years that I've been here, and from what I've heard about the past, the general paradigm oscillates back and forth between a more defined and conservative approach and a more loose and progressive approach, each with their own strengths and weaknesses and seemingly inherent hurdles to overcome. Very few people that I've worked with are truly &quot;balanced,&quot; and if they are, as in Taoist philosophy, one can always imagine a polar opposite. &quot;Dark&quot; can only defined in relation to &quot;light.&quot;But my point in bringing this up is that I've found the &quot;new&quot; paradigm is always in reaction to the &quot;old&quot; paradigm. When I first arrived at the school it was very loose, very &quot;hand wavey&quot; (to use an RPG term) and a kind of coup occurred in which a much more structured (and, in the end, rigid) paradigm arose. As you said, 5E is (at least partially) a reaction to 4E, which was a reaction to 3E, which was a reaction to 2E, which was a reaction to 1E, which was a reaction to OD&amp;D. And so it goes.The problem is that if the new iteration is based too much on reaction, it tends to go too far the other way. So the key, I think, is trying to find a middle ground, that doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater (of the old paradigm or edition), yet does seek to address the excesses (that is, the bathwater's gotta go!).&nbsp;Now if we want to be wise in a Taoist sense, we will realize that that there is no final, perfectly balanced solution. There is no Edition to End All Editions...if we want to be even wiser, we can say, &quot;But...there is an edition to end all editions, and it is the one you're playing!&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 6241312, member: 59082"] Interesting post. I work at a small private school in which we're always tinkering with not only the curriculum but our governance structure (one of the perks of being a private school). I've found that over the five+ years that I've been here, and from what I've heard about the past, the general paradigm oscillates back and forth between a more defined and conservative approach and a more loose and progressive approach, each with their own strengths and weaknesses and seemingly inherent hurdles to overcome. Very few people that I've worked with are truly "balanced," and if they are, as in Taoist philosophy, one can always imagine a polar opposite. "Dark" can only defined in relation to "light." But my point in bringing this up is that I've found the "new" paradigm is always in reaction to the "old" paradigm. When I first arrived at the school it was very loose, very "hand wavey" (to use an RPG term) and a kind of coup occurred in which a much more structured (and, in the end, rigid) paradigm arose. As you said, 5E is (at least partially) a reaction to 4E, which was a reaction to 3E, which was a reaction to 2E, which was a reaction to 1E, which was a reaction to OD&D. And so it goes. The problem is that if the new iteration is based too much on reaction, it tends to go too far the other way. So the key, I think, is trying to find a middle ground, that doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater (of the old paradigm or edition), yet does seek to address the excesses (that is, the bathwater's gotta go!). Now if we want to be wise in a Taoist sense, we will realize that that there is no final, perfectly balanced solution. There is no Edition to End All Editions...if we want to be even wiser, we can say, "But...there [I]is [/I]an edition to end all editions, and it is the one you're playing!" [/QUOTE]

Verification