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

[Psion]

Read mmadsen's post, which I quoted. He quotes where Hussar talks about people considering that blog post an insult, and bolds a part of it in reference to that statement.

mmadsen bolds without comment. Did mmadsen really take this statement as slamming prior editions? Or did he assume that Hussar's apparently confused statement as evidence that someone was saying this, and narrowed it down to the only statement that talks about prior editions at all?

My point remains. I still see nobody whose point with respect to Noonan's post was "he's slamming prior editions". It appears this assertion was pulled from the aether.

 

[Allister]

re: Eladrin and half-orcs

I'm still surprised that people dislike the eladrin. To me, the eladrin were the obvious answer to the almost constant split that occurs in campaign worlds where they split the elf into high and wild versions.

I thought the reason half-orcs weren't in was because you would need to add orcs as well since half-elves depend on having access to both human and elven features such as feats.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Read mmadsen's post, which I quoted. He quotes where Hussar talks about people considering that blog post an insult, and bolds a part of it in reference to that statement. The fact that he would respond to the post and highlight a section of the blog post in reference to Hussar talking about people taking insult from it implies that he is suggesting the bolded section is the part to take insult from.

You know, I thought he was suggesting the same thing.

Of course, that was part of the revision after folks had already taken insult from the original post, so I am not sure how relevant it is in any case.


RC

 

[Thasmodious]

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.

None of those were a part of D&D originally, and only the monk ended up part of OD&D (in Blackmoor).

Every edition of D&D has been about change and every edition has taken away and added classes and races. The game was originally three classes and four races. 1e was a complete redesign of OD&D. Half orcs have only been in two editions PHBs - 1e and 3e. The cavalier was only ever in one edition. 2e didn't have monks or barbarians in the PHB (or assassins). Psionics didn't appear in the 2e PHB either. Barbarians, monks, and half orcs came back to the PHB in 3e, only to leave again in 4e. Most editions of D&D (with the notable exception of 3e) introduced new races or classes to the core (cavalier, assassin, paladin, half-orc, gnome, etc).

Claiming any of these elements outside of fighter/wizard/cleric/(thief) as core to 30 years of D&D is, indeed, a case of clouded nostalgia. Now, I am not accusing you of such a position WP, this is more in response to rounser, by way of your post.

Each edition of D&D has set its own core set based around the core four classes and the basic four races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling). Gnomes and half orcs were new to core D&D at one point, too. None of the new additions to 4e were created out of the blue, but have arisen, like all other new additions, from elements of the previous editions, popular supplements, Dragon articles and the like.

Point is, there is nothing new about new things in the latest edition. You want to talk about what is core to D&D, change amongst editions is at the top of that list.

 

[Imban]

re: Eladrin and half-orcs

I'm still surprised that people dislike the eladrin. To me, the eladrin were the obvious answer to the almost constant split that occurs in campaign worlds where they split the elf into high and wild versions.

I think the majority of the dislike of eladrin stems from their have a racial ability to teleport. I mean, okay, high elves, those are pretty common.

Teleporting high elves?

I thought the reason half-orcs weren't in was because you would need to add orcs as well since half-elves depend on having access to both human and elven features such as feats.

That would only bear out if we weren't getting Half-Orcs in PHB2 in time for Eberron and Orcs approximately never. (Or in Dragon sometime.)

 

[Mallus]

Teleporting high elves?

The step into Faerie and reappear in the mortal world several feet away. Seems both folkloric and high fantasy to me.

 

[Remathilis]

Less D&Disms, not more, would have been the way to go, IMO.

Then what you want is d20 Fantasy, not Dungeons & Dragons {TM}

D&D has had its own brand of fantasy since, about 1e when Gary inserted as many Greyhawk plugs in the DMG as humanly possible. D&D has ALWAYS been about pointy-hat wizards shooting magic missiles, armored mace-wielding priests using divine power to repel the undead, and tricky thieves equally adept at picking a lock, climbing a wall, and deciphering his doctor's handwriting. No where but in D&D (and D&D inspired fantasy) do druids turn into bears, paladins get kick-ass horses, and dragons come color-coded for your convenience. Only in D&D is there a difference between a goblin, hobgoblin, gnome, sprite, bugbear, kobold, and fairy. Only in D&D is there a distinction made between "demon" and "devil".

You get the idea.

Now, D&D could chose to drown down a bunch of that distinction and settle on the time tested generic fantasy we've had for a while, or it could begin to play up its own IP and strengths and embrace the quirkiness that D&D is.

A wonderful side effect of D&D has been its ease of kit-bashing. However, I don't think D&D should be built for that. That's like saying they should build cars with only interchangeable parts because I might want a Ford Mustang engine in my Chevy Camaro.

D&D is a world, a game, and a brand. The last thing it needs to be diluted to "Generic d20 Fantasy" We have enough generic fantasy systems for that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My point remains. I still see nobody whose point with respect to Noonan's post was "he's slamming prior editions". It appears this assertion was pulled from the aether.

Hussar is aware that I am not reading his posts, due to private emails, and has been aware of the same for quite a long while. I very much believe that there is a certain "See, why doesn't RC respond to my points? I must be right!" going on, based on what parts of Hussar's posts I've seen quoted by others.

I wouldn't worry about it too much.

That said, when Noonan's blog was first written, it was seen to be suggesting that WotC didn't care what the fan base thought, because of the way it was worded. Noonan subsequently said that this is not what was meant, and revised the post.

My point was that, knowing what was going on re: 4e on the InterWeb (after all, the blog post was a response to what was happening on the InterWeb), Noonan's revised post should have been his first post.

I don't think WotC had someone lined up whose job was just to control the message they were giving, and as a result, they created some of the problem re: 4e criticism that they are now seeing.

Of course, it could have been worse. Imagine that Gary Gygax was put back in charge of design when 4e was announced, and he commented freely about 2e and 3e while working on the design process. There was a man with strong opinions, to say the least!

I'm still surprised that people dislike the eladrin. To me, the eladrin were the obvious answer to the almost constant split that occurs in campaign worlds where they split the elf into high and wild versions.

I think that some people are put off by a name that doesn't immediately bring an image to mind. I like the idea of hooking elves more closely to Faerie, myself.....I had a thread on EN World about the same not too horribly long ago, although what I did was very different from what WotC did.

I think that eladrin called "high elves" would have been very well received. (Shrug) Of course, I could be wrong.


RC

 

[Imban]

The step into Faerie and reappear in the mortal world several feet away. Seems both folkloric and high fantasy to me.

To you, sure.

 

[Loonook]

You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to come in here and show us how some idiosyncrasy of the 4e rules is actually so contrary to the enjoyment of the game that those of us who play it are actually making you enjoy your life less by continuing to play.

But don't sweat it. I'm sure that someone will pick up that torch and run with it.

Full disclosure: I'm currently running a 4e campaign that has stalled due to flaky players who don't show up for games, while trying to get into someone's online 3.x game. OMG edition slut!

Yes, how dare people criticize a game... gods, your snark even has smaller snark hanging off of it. Which is impressive in the way that a facehugger is adorable .

The whole issue which seems to be raised is that there are no valid criticisms and those who critique are not experiencing the deep love which 4e'rs have... yet those same 4e players get to drag out the tired chestnuts which are handwaved via house rules by anyone who runs across them (drowning rules, for example) from 3.X while touting a somewhat similar way in 4e.

What I really hate is the fact that it is also wrong to not enjoy the fluff. Guys... let's admit the fact that the Great Wheel was sort of... ehh... but that this whole Elemental Chaos/Astral Sea/Domain thing seems just as bad. However, the Wheel made a little more sense in a planar geography sense (you could 'cross over' to planes which are near, the use of portals) than the idea that the planes have become a Spelljammer's wonderland.

There are plenty of issues around for 4e, and all of them deserved to be criticized. Hell, typeface is a valid criticism if it is done right... however, saying that it is somehow wrong for critiques because you enjoy something is great. My dog enjoys eating his own feces... I'm thinking about throwing a shindig*.

* - So as to not be accused of saying 4e = dog feces, I wanted an extreme example which would explain the disgust which people seem to have with the whole thing. In fact, I can think of games which are far worse than 4e (and at least one where you probably gain a benefit from such coprophagic behavior).

Also, to Mearls:

In general not a lot of issues with your postings . . . but come on. Please, can you WotC guys just chill out a bit on the whole spilled milk issue? Yes, there will be people who hate your product, and some will just hate it because it is new, and some will hate it because it is D&D, and some will hate it because it is Satanic and will corrupt their children. But part of producing a product is accepting the flak which occurs from the release. Yes, you may think that this argument is affecting the community in an adverse way, but by allowing the community to stew in its own delicious juices rather than airing grievances, you'll just make it worse. Accept the hate.

And now... a puppy making an Athletics Check.

Healing the Wounds With Canine Love,

Slainte,

-Loonook.