Forum

[JoeGKushner]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

I'm pretty sure that someone's feelings aren't something that can be argued against.

If you say 2+2 is 5... well, yes, it can be argued against. having feelings and/or an opinion doesn't make it valid.

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

"Your feelings are wrong! Change the way you feel!": the argument doesn't work, no matter how much evidence you have that their feelings are wrong, because it's not on a logical level.

And at the end of the day, 2+2 is still 4.

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

Barbarian rages in 3e were a different beast than martial dailies in 4e, so drawing that comparison is false and misleading to begin with.

But even if they were the same thing, 4e's martial dailies and encounter powers obviously ramp up the unreality of the situation. If the barbarian rages were limited enough in scope that you could mostly ignore it, 4e's martial powers are certainly not so limited

And if it bothers your suspension of the game to the point where you won't play it... there are a ton of great games out there that may encompass your play style. No matter what your feelings on 4e, it's not going to change the mechanics of the game. If you look at the game and the underlying assumptions and say, "this sucks" and can't play it because of that, I respect your feelings. If you say no one can play it that way, well, that's where the 'feeling's go I suppose.

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

Don't put the cart before the horse, there. The point of the game is to give me appealing mechanics that I can play with. It is 100% the fault of the game if it doesn't give me that: presumably, they could have done things differently, and they didn't, and a D&D message board is exactly the place to discuss the things you don't like about D&D that you want to be done differently in the future.

Ah, we're talking about WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE in the game as opposed to how is the game playing now. To me, those are seperate issues.

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

I am the customer, here: D&D is competing for my money and free time, and it is failing to achieve it. It's not my fault if it fails. It doesn't want to fail. It wants my money, it wants my time. It needs to be receptive to the way that I think...I can't be wrong, because it's supposed to serve me.

Good in theory but if the new edition captures a larger consumer base than it loses, factually wrong. The game can continue to piss off its old fans for decades. Games Workshop has certainly proven this model true to a point.

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

Discussing why it fails to achieve it is completely within the scope of the conversation here. With some positions, perhaps D&D won't ever realistically be able to achieve popularity with me, but in this specific case, 4e is obviously trying something new, and they need to see if it works or not. Threads talking about why it doesn't work for some people are entirely useful, because then we get a sense of what can make the D&D game better for delivering fun to more people.

And yet... it's not really about why it doesn't work for some people because on the other hand, it does work for... other people and changing it to appease X means you piss off Y.

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

Well, that's part of the idea for this thread, isn't it? "How can I try and think about things in a new way that helps me enjoy what it is?" is basically the question in the thread title. People aren't categorical and immutable, so they can change (or they can change the game) enough to make it worth playing, if they want to.

I can agree with that. But only if they're actually, you know, playing the game. People who are armchair gamers sitting back and reading and doing zero playing, to me, have about as much say as people who illegally steal things online and think that companies should listen to them because they're read all the products.

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

Specifically, the point of the game's intricate balance needs to be called out as a thing that doesn't have to exist: they could have balanced the game with martial powers that were "always on," but they chose not to. That's a choice that can certainly be debated by fans of the game.

Perhaps it could have been debated by the creators of the game before hand but that stall is empty and the horses are on the field.

It doesn't mean that future supplements may not take that rotue but unless this is a discussion for tearing down the entire structure of the game to make martial feats more believable, it's certainly seems outside the scope.

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

Second, you seem to think that they want other people to share the view, but from what I've seen in this thread, most of them just want others to accept that they have a problem, and maybe propose ways to fix it. They don't want to change the way you think, they want the game to match more how they think.

But it's not going to. Unless they hosue rule everything from the ground up, reality is not going to suddenly change itself as if the X-Men's old foe Proteus popped up around the corner.

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

Third, the conversation is entirely topical for the boards, so "Move Along" just seems to be a way to shut down a conversation that you're not a fan of. If you're not a fan of people talking about how 4e encounter and daily powers don't meet their sense of verisimilitude, and so make the game less fun for them, just don't come to the thread. Certainly "You're feelings are wrong and you should shut up!" is not very constructive for helping anyone.

I guess I'm questioning the people who don't actually seem to be playing the game and are instead playing another game and armchair gaming 4e.

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

4e's various changes certainly speak against that. The game goes through editions, and 4e certainly took a lot of things that people didn't like about 3e and changed them. 5e will take things that people don't like about 4e and will change them, too. Furthermore, people designing supplements for 4e might find a way to change the game to something more appealing.

All true.

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

The game does change because I don't like it. The game has changed before because people don't like it, and it will continue to change because people will never be totally satisfied with it.

But it doesn't change mid-stream. Perhaps I'm underestimating WoTC but I don't think we're going to see another edition of D&D for say, 5 years. With that in mind, I'm just not seeing a lot of utility in the complaints which generally fail to offer anything outside of "I don't like it."

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

It's not about liking or not liking an entire edition. This thread wasn't started with "Come here and tell me how much you love 4e!" in mind. There was a specific problem to address -- a specific problem that didn't need to occur, and that can potentially be fixed for those who have the problem.

Is it difficult for you to be OK with people who have problems with 4e? If so, then I'd advocate ignoring the threads about 4e problems, rather than entering them just to tell people that they're wrong and need to shut up.

We agree to disagree. The specific problem 'didn't need to occur' is an opinion and those who have it, and if I've misread someone, let me know, from those who actually aren't playing the game. Why should someone who isn't playing the game have an equally valid opinion as someone who is? For example, Kamikaze Midget, are you playing 4e?