Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

Imaro · Jul 7, 2012

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
Given the response to my post, and the fact that you were supporting someone who was saying that the "4E is not D&D / is not an RPG / is just a tactical minis game" argument is perfectly fine, I don't think your point was as misunderstood as you think it was.

Or, we all misunderstood it in practically the same way, which points to a problem with the transmitter, not the receivers.

I supported Brendan... you know what nevermind, I explained it and now I guess I'm being dishonest about that as well... you really do know me I guess... whatever man. I guess we don't really have anything left to say to one another.

Patryn of Elvenshae · Jul 7, 2012

Imaro said:
I supported Brendan...

Who was saying, "No, it's totally okay when someone says [anti-4E], because they don't mean it, right?" When, you know, that's patently false in a bunch of cases.

Or, as Obryn said:

Obryn said:
IMO, Productive Opinions:
"Vancian Wizards sux"
"Fighters with Dailies sux"
"HPs are/are not physical damage"

These are things about which, at the very least, productive discussion is theoretically possible. (For about 3 pages. )

"4e is not an RPG" or "4e is not D&D" is basically just saying "4e players? You're not in the club, and you're wrong about the kind of game you're playing." There's no way to dress it up pretty; it's always an edition war statement.

Some people, even those just a couple posts above, have actually stated that they actually believe that 4E isn't a roleplaying game.

At any rate, have fun!

Imaro · Jul 7, 2012

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
Who was saying, "No, it's totally okay when someone says [anti-4E], because they don't mean it, right?" When, you know, that's patently false in a bunch of cases.

That was purely your interpretation. Which like your interpretation of my post is shaped by your own 4e bias and auto-assumes the worst possible interpretation. I guess it is impossible that someone could actually be stating their feelings or thoughts about 4e in a poor manner (which, IMO, was the possibility Brendan was saying MAY have been the case)... because all of us on this board express ourselves perfectly all the time.

Tony Vargas · Jul 7, 2012

Shadeydm said:
so um yeah part of the reason 4E was so different was to make sure there would be no repeat of Pathfinder when it came time to make a new edition.

4e preceded Pathfinder, so I guess you mean 5e? The GSL was different from the OGL, perhaps in an attempt to coerce 3pps into abandoning support for 3.5 - an attempt that clearly backfired in a big way.

What did you expect it to look like 4E? Of course it resembles the older editions in some respects its telling those fans they too will be included.

I expected it to look like a horribly imbalanced retro-clone of AD&D with powerful/versatile casters, an inconsistently performing Thief, and an optionless fighter that tried to make up for being less entertaining than watching paint dry by hitting a little harder than everyone else.

Really the dark lords/corporate masters talk that 4E fans ridiculed has come full circle and is now being reiterated by 4E fans? Thats rich...

Sorry, I've been committing that particular bit of humor ever since Hasbro (/Hasbro?/ Seriously?) bought out WotC. And I wasn't much more charitable towards WotC before that (The makers of M:tG bought D&D? Has the whole world gone mad?). I spent most of my career working for Corporate America, and I was cynical to begin with. :shrug: They've gotta make money for the stockholders, and hit quarterly numbers, and that leads to some crazy stuff. Stuff that very often is less successful than focusing on quality and consistency would have been.

Patryn of Elvenshae · Jul 7, 2012

Imaro said:
That was purely your interpretation.

Seriously?

Bedrockgames said:
I do understand the concern, but I think what folks are trying to say is they find a game like 4e (or even 3e) with its focus on the grid and tactics to be disrupted to their sense of immersion in the game (and therefor rp). Some people might have the opposite reaction. But to say peope shouldn't voice the complaint because you disagree is equally dismissive.

To which you said:

You said:
I tried to xp you but couldn't... but yeah, this right here.

The complaint, for the record, was:

Shadow said:
I can see how some people, especially fans of 4e, would be somewhat disappointed with the current iteration of the playtest rules. However, for me and many people D&D is a role-playing game rather than a tactical miniatures game.

Imaro said:
I guess it is impossible that someone could actually be stating their feelings or thoughts about 4e in a poor manner (which, IMO, was the possibility Brendan was saying MAY have been the case)... because all of us on this board express ourselves perfectly all the time.

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
Might I humbly suggest, then, that they say this*, instead of the old saw about 4E (usually, and 3E, less so) being a tactical miniatures game and not a roleplaying game?

The first is a statement of position. The second is an insult. And, yes, needs to die in a fire.

* IF, in fact, it's the argument they want to make - I suspect in some, if not many, cases, it is not.

So, yes - I'm all for the possibility that they're expressing a sincere statement of preference in a bad way (and that bad way should be done away with, because it's insulting and unhelpful to the conversation).

However, not everyone is doing that - some are being insulting just to be insulting, and that's worse.

Bedrockgames · Jul 7, 2012

I was just trying to give theoster the benefit of the doubt. To me it looked like my paraphrase is what he was trying to say. Either way as long as he is not dmanding others agree with his assesment I don't see the problem. A lot of people feel 3e or 2e are broken due to a lack of balance. i don't agree with this assesment but I won't label the opinion itself an insult. If someone descirbes 4e as a tactical miniature game because that is how they feel it plays, that is just their opinion. People are not all going to like the games we like. There is room for a multitude of positive and negative opinions on various editions. People don't always communicate in the most effective way.

Imaro · Jul 7, 2012

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
Seriously?

So, yes - I'm all for the possibility that they're expressing a sincere statement of preference in a bad way (and that bad way should be done away with, because it's insulting and unhelpful to the conversation).

However, not everyone is doing that - some are being insulting just to be insulting, and that's worse.

This is what I find ironic... putting aside the fact that Brendan has now come forth and stated his intentions were exactly what I thought they were...

You're complaining about people being insulting just to be insulting about a game... but that didn't stop you from being insulting to me just to be insulting when replying to my post... even though I wasn't towards you. IMO, that's just backwards... and for the record I don't care if you could have said it more politely, you didn't and you didn't correct the situation either. So yeah, again... kettle...pot... and that's all I have to say on the matter.

billd91 · Jul 7, 2012

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
Who was saying, "No, it's totally okay when someone says [anti-4E], because they don't mean it, right?" When, you know, that's patently false in a bunch of cases.

Ideally, I hope people are trashing 4e or any other edition they don't like because they mean it. What people have to do is separate the trashing of the game from the trashing of its fans. You shouldn't really care that someone finds 4e to be a glorified miniature skirmish game any more than I should care that someone thinks 3e is intentionally unbalanced. I don't agree with that assessment, I may even refute it, but I won't get huffy that someone dared to express it.
Failure to make that separation is the source of edition wars, not the criticism.

pemerton · Jul 7, 2012

What I don't understand is this: if people think that "combat" is the opposite of "roleplaying", then why are they playing a game that, in its PC build rules and action resolution rules, makes combat the principal focus of conflict resolution?

I mean, I'm looking at the playtest PCs, and the Caves of Chaos module, and what am I meant to see besides a huge, old-style slugfest between PCs and humanoids?

pemerton · Jul 7, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
A lot of people feel 3e or 2e are broken due to a lack of balance. i don't agree with this assesment but I won't label the opinion itself an insult. If someone descirbes 4e as a tactical miniature game because that is how they feel it plays, that is just their opinion.

I personally think that there is a difference between saying that a game is a poorly designed instance of an RPG, and saying that it is not an RPG. The first doesn't imply that those who play the game are mistaken about their hobby, for instance. The second does.