It's Friday and time for a look around the web. Seems there's something of a dust-up between the old shool crowd and the 4th edition folks.
One example of dividing line from the Old School viewpoint is found here by Jeff Rients. That post with a follow-up comment sparked this reply by Scott over on A Butterfly Dreaming. In short order insults of tribalism and more are being fired.
In general I find myself on Jeff's side here, not in what I like (because I dislike any and all editions of D&D)- but in the logic presented.
Original D&D was a very different game than 4th edition. That Scott feels that the changes since correct "...those things that I found most senseless and annoying ..." doesn't alter that fact. It only highlights how different the game he plays is. He highlights rules (calling the old ones senseless and annoying) and then goes on to say that D&D isn't about rules.
That's senseless and annoying if anything is.
Yes, D&D is to use Scott's words a- "...game of rules". And there is no irony in Old School saying that, as their whole mindset is a return to the original version of those rules and the methods of play they inspired.
A D&D Campaign is more than the rules of course, as is any other RPG. But relying upon this fact to say we all (no matter the edition) play the same game is as foolish as saying that those playing GURPS are playing D&D. It makes you look silly, and it belittles people playing older editions for no reason.
I'm for accepting the differences, and flowing with them. Let Old School be Old School and accept that they don't like 4th. Like all old timers, they will whine now and then about the 'kids'. So what? They aren't burning your books are they?