4E being immune to criticism (forked from Sentimentality And D&D...)

[Wisdom Penalty]

While the tone leaves something to be desired, Rounser, I don't disagree with your points. Count me as another guy who would have preferred the cosmology adhere more to the same in previous editions, and would have liked half-orcs, gnomes, monks, and barbarians over warlords, eladrin, tieflings, and warlocks.

You understand, of course, this is simply personal preference. Because you and I feel that way doesn't mean WotC has to as well. It certainly doesn't make our way "right". For every guy you find who prefers half-orcs to eladrin, you'll find one who prefers eladrin to half-orcs. Based upon the popularity of the game, you and I are in the minority.

One of the singular benefits of D&D (as it stands now) is that the rules behind the flavor are mechanically sound (at least, thus far it appears that way to me). You (or your DM) can easily change flavor. I know; I've done it. What you can't do (as easily) is change the fundamental mechanics of the game (see Pathfinder) without running into issues. Many of them.

To reiterate: The mechanics are the skeleton of the game (facts), and the flavor is fleshy goop layered atop it (opinions). Much easier to change the latter to fit your style than the former.

So while I want my cake (flavor) and eat it too (mechanics), if I had to pick one that WotC established as a foundation in the current version, you can bet your bottom copper it'd be the mechanical aspect.

WP

 

[Raven Crowking]

Crazy talk!

My speciality.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As an aside (and as more crazy talk), I really think that WotC set the tone of 4e's reception when the advertising department decided that showing us how bad other editions were was going to go over well with gamers.

There are also some blog posts (such as "Cloudwatching") that I'd have definitely thought twice about posting. Telling people not to complain is the surest form of doubling the number of complaints there is.




RC

 

[mmadsen]

A lot of "criticism" of 4E amounts to "it isn't OD&D/1E/2E/3E" and "I prefer edition X".

I think we can agree that a lot of "criticism" of 4E amounts to "it isn't OD&D/1E/2E/3E" and "I prefer edition X" -- maybe even most of it -- but certainly not all of it, and rounser's comments in particular don't seem to match that description.

As a hyper-analytical type who likes to think in design terms, I'm constantly reminded that other people do not want any nuance in their discussions. They want to win an edition war. They do not want to look at what worked in each edition -- or what works in other RPGs -- in order to design something better. They want to look at each edition in toto.

 

[vagabundo]

I think we can agree that a lot of "criticism" of 4E amounts to "it isn't OD&D/1E/2E/3E" and "I prefer edition X" -- maybe even most of it -- but certainly not all of it, and rounser's comments in particular don't seem to match that description.

I dont agree, but I'd be going against the rules of the forum to say more and ENworld is a great forum.

 

[Hussar]

As an aside (and as more crazy talk), I really think that WotC set the tone of 4e's reception when the advertising department decided that showing us how bad other editions were was going to go over well with gamers.

There are also some blog posts (such as "Cloudwatching") that I'd have definitely thought twice about posting. Telling people not to complain is the surest form of doubling the number of complaints there is.




RC

Me, I think it has a HUGE lot more to do with a group of people deciding that they will be insulted regardless of what's been said. I mean, take RC's Cloudwatching example. Take a moment to reread the blog post:

David Noonan's Blog - Wizards Community

Where in that is anything, and I mean ANYTHING insulting about earlier editions? What in that specific blog post, since it's something that's been pointed to, that draws anyone's ire?

 

[WalterKovacs]

I think we can agree that a lot of "criticism" of 4E amounts to "it isn't OD&D/1E/2E/3E" and "I prefer edition X" -- maybe even most of it -- but certainly not all of it, and rounser's comments in particular don't seem to match that description.

Actually, in some cases it's not just that, but a case of them seeming to forget, perhaps because of nostalgia, that what they are complaining about is something that was also a problem in the game they prefer, or they try to frame the problem as being 4e deviating from what the earlier editions did ... completely divorced from whether or not the old editions were like that.

In many cases, there is a claim of conservatism when what they are attempting to conserve isn't actually something that was there, or there for long, but simply, their own preference.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actually, in some cases it's not just that, but a case of them seeming to forget, perhaps because of nostalgia, that what they are complaining about is something that was also a problem in the game they prefer, or they try to frame the problem as being 4e deviating from what the earlier editions did ... completely divorced from whether or not the old editions were like that.

Regardless, of course, of whether or not they are still playing those older editions, and therefore seeing them more clearly, say, than someone who isn't, but is claiming that their current experiences are the product of nostalgia.


RC

 

[mmadsen]

I dont agree, but I'd be going against the rules of the forum to say more and ENworld is a great forum.

You're quite welcome to explain your point of view. Are you saying that you think rounser's opinions are pure nostalgia? Or do you think all criticism of 4E must be pure nostalgia?

 

[mmadsen]

Me, I think it has a HUGE lot more to do with a group of people deciding that they will be insulted regardless of what's been said.

Yes, people want an edition war, and they want to be on the winning side of it.

I mean, take RC's Cloudwatching example. Take a moment to reread the blog post.

Where in that is anything, and I mean ANYTHING insulting about earlier editions? What in that specific blog post, since it's something that's been pointed to, that draws anyone's ire?

Here's the text of that blog post:

Why 4th Edition Is Like Clouds In The Sky: If you're really excited about 4th edition, it comes out next May. If you're still sitting on the fence, it comes out next May. And if you hate it with fire of a thousand suns, well, it comes out next May.

I'm flattered that some people are going to reinterpret their 3rd edition games for 4th edition, and I'm disappointed that other people are going to stick with 3.5 no matter what. You've got months and months to make what is a pretty important purchasing decision--at least it's important in terms of your hobby game of choice.

(As a side note, I'd sound completely ridiculous if I said something like, "You shouldn't use all those 3.5 books I worked really hard to write." They're good books. Seriously. We just learned a lot while writing them and playing with them, that's all.)

So you've got time. We're going to reveal more and more of the game as time goes on, both here on the wizards site, in the preview books, and at D&D Experience (Feb. 28 to March 3 in DC). But all those individual "reveals" are clouds in the sky. You can admire the clouds' beauty or shake your fists at them, but they're just going to keep moving across the sky anyway.

There's nothing wrong with cloud-watching. If you're a farmer, you need to watch the clouds at least a little. (Maybe DMs are like farmers, but that might be straining the metaphor.) But farmers know that no amount of cloudwatching will bring the rain. (And don't mention cloud-seeding; it messes up the metaphor.)

You can shake your fists at the sky. You can do a rain dance. You can ignore the clouds completely. Given the circumstance you're in as a D&D player right now, those responses are all valid. But none of them move the clouds.

You'll be playing D&D with clouds in the sky until May, so just do that. Watch the clouds if you like, but don't let the threat/promise of rain mess with your ongoing games.

The weird thing is that playing D&D is something that might move the clouds. In fact, it's the thing that got the clouds moving in the first place. In other words, play your D&D game with a critical eye--what's working and what isn't? We've seen a lot more of this already in message board traffic since the 4e announcement; an impending new edition makes everyone think a little more deeply about the game they're already playing.

In a way, you've been playtesting 4e all along by playing 3e and sharing your experiences with us and with others. The more you tell us about your game, the more we understand what's going on. And the game is moving along, but it ain't done yet. We can--and will--make it better before May.​

The bold highlighting is mine.