It seems like in a lot of the threads I read someone at sometime chimes in with a "we don't really know anything about 4E yet because they haven't published it so your point is invalid". I can see, in theory, that basing your opinion only on what's been released so far would be risky. But it seems like this "you don't know everything" objection is used for any opinion however loosely dependant on the reality of what 4E will be.
"If 4E has a picture of a ninja turtle on the front cover I will be unhappy" ought to speak for itself, and ought to be comprehensible regardless of what 4E artwork winds up looking like, but for some reason it's not to some people. And if a WotC designer writes a web article saying "I really like ninja turtles and it would be cool to use them for our cover art" then I would think the point would be even more pertinent.
Also, I have yet to see the "we don't have the published 4E rules" argument used to object to a statement in support of 4E, it seems to be exclusively used as a counter for someone complaining about a proposed new feature of 4E. And that one-sidedness doesn't make any logical sense to me.
First of all, the point of a message board is to discuss ideas. Most of these threads AFAICT are people expressing what they would like to see in an RPG. The "we haven't seen 4E yet" objection usually strikes me as being somewhat beside the point - which is mainly about what the person thinks of a particular feature of an RPG (like the "sweet spot" issue for levels or a dislike of ninja turtles).
Secondly, the point of the "behind the scenes" and preview type articles from WotC are to express a coherent idea. What is the point of publishing such an article if you can't make a coherent point in response to it? What are the designers really communicating to us if the "you haven't seen the final rules yet" argument trumps all debate? Again, this argument just seems like a tactic because you would think that it would logically apply to every thread and any opinion about 4E. (Except maybe "I trust the 4E designers to produce a great game" or variations of that.)
In closing, I would like to add that I've removed a sentence from this post that completely changes the meaning and adds a significance to what I've written that will blow your mind. Because of this, anyone who disagrees with me has no basis to do so because they haven't seen my full post. Trust me, if you saw the full version you would think it was great.
"If 4E has a picture of a ninja turtle on the front cover I will be unhappy" ought to speak for itself, and ought to be comprehensible regardless of what 4E artwork winds up looking like, but for some reason it's not to some people. And if a WotC designer writes a web article saying "I really like ninja turtles and it would be cool to use them for our cover art" then I would think the point would be even more pertinent.
Also, I have yet to see the "we don't have the published 4E rules" argument used to object to a statement in support of 4E, it seems to be exclusively used as a counter for someone complaining about a proposed new feature of 4E. And that one-sidedness doesn't make any logical sense to me.
First of all, the point of a message board is to discuss ideas. Most of these threads AFAICT are people expressing what they would like to see in an RPG. The "we haven't seen 4E yet" objection usually strikes me as being somewhat beside the point - which is mainly about what the person thinks of a particular feature of an RPG (like the "sweet spot" issue for levels or a dislike of ninja turtles).
Secondly, the point of the "behind the scenes" and preview type articles from WotC are to express a coherent idea. What is the point of publishing such an article if you can't make a coherent point in response to it? What are the designers really communicating to us if the "you haven't seen the final rules yet" argument trumps all debate? Again, this argument just seems like a tactic because you would think that it would logically apply to every thread and any opinion about 4E. (Except maybe "I trust the 4E designers to produce a great game" or variations of that.)
In closing, I would like to add that I've removed a sentence from this post that completely changes the meaning and adds a significance to what I've written that will blow your mind. Because of this, anyone who disagrees with me has no basis to do so because they haven't seen my full post. Trust me, if you saw the full version you would think it was great.
