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

[Stalker0]

T
Also, I find generally the criticism leveled at 4E also applies to other editions of D&D.

I find that this is valid criticism however. If a person sees a problem with the last edition or the last several, the hope is always that the upgrade will fix this. If it doesn't that is grounds for criticism.

Of course, whether there was a "problem" in the first place is always a matter of debate

Ultimately I don't mind edition comparisons as long as there is some logic to the comparison. Saying that 4e sucks because its not 3e serves nothing. Saying that 4e sucks because it doesn't have "X" that 3rd edition had, and "X" was great and wonderful, then that's a step towards a good debate.

I will also say I see far too many 4e enthusiasts defend 4e by saying "well 3e had that problem too!". That's not a defense, that's an acknowledgment that there is in fact a problem...one that WOTC didn't address.

Ultimately no edition is perfect, and as long as people have constructive arguments then bring on the love and hate, and lets see what comes about it.

 

[Fifth Element]

I find that this is valid criticism however. If a person sees a problem with the last edition or the last several, the hope is always that the upgrade will fix this. If it doesn't that is grounds for criticism.

"This has always been a problem" is a fair criticism. I'm talking about the situations where 4E only is slammed for something, while the problem actually existed in earlier editions as well.

Not "D&D has this problem", but "4E introduced this problem."

 

[JackSmithIV]

... and the idea of change for change's sake doesn't sit well with some...

If that's why they moved to 4th Edition. But I hardly think the development philosophy that launched the design of the entire system was "We need change, whether it's good or bad... let's just... I don't know, let's just change".

Yeah, but this is a valid thing for someone to say. If 4e ruins D&D for the individual they have the right to say so... declaration of distaste is a valid criticism, and not all criticism need be positive. Criticism includes observation, reasoned judgment and value judgment as part and parcel of the definition.

The valid critique starts with 'I prefer edition X' but in many cases there are reasons which this preference can affect the enjoyment of the game and thus have full rights to be aired so as to possibly find a way to resolve these issues without having to cling to an old edition (or rush to the new)

Full rights to be aired? Yes, speak out, but for how long? When does it become enough that we have three threads at any given time on the main page of the General forums that are started by people disgruntled by the new system looking for some recognition. It is very clear to everyone that there is a large party that is aggrieved by 4th Edition because it doesn't represent they want in a gaming experience.

But why is this? Call of Cthulhu is an excellent game. It does not fit a gaming style I engage in on a regular basis. You don't see me starting a thread on the forums entitled "Why I don't play Cthulhu". Why? Because, in my opinion, these boards are not here to agnowledge my dislikes. And if I did start such a thread, people would show up and say "It's fine, it's preference, you don't have to play it". Which is the appropriate answer. But for some reason, it's not appropriate for discussion about D&D. Why do I think this is?

Because D&D is popular. And to a lot of people, it's very personal. Which is the point of the thread this thread is forked from. And while yes, they may have full rights to express their opinions, I don't think that many of these posters come looking for solutions, and if they do, I don't see how this community can "resolve" their personal preference. Or has a responsibility to.

 

[Stalker0]

"This has always been a problem" is a fair criticism. I'm talking about the situations where 4E only is slammed for something, while the problem actually existed in earlier editions as well.

Not "D&D has this problem", but "4E introduced this problem."

Fair enough. In that case, I agree with you, I too have seen this thrown around far too often.

 

[pawsplay]

I see it as this way. A lot of "criticism" of 4E amounts to "it isn't OD&D/1E/2E/3E" and "I prefer edition X". People may go into detail about things, but the core meaning of what they say isn't any more than that. That doesn't really qualify as criticism. You are just stating a preference or lack therof and calling it criticism.

I'm having trouble parsing this statement in regards to the quote, but I'm pretty sure I disagree with you. IMO, people criticize 4e not because it isn't X previous edition, but because they don't like it as much as a previous edition. That isn't simply a preference, but an opinion formed by considering what characteristics 4e has.

 

[Cadfan]

I've got my list of 4e critiques. And I don't get mad at people for leveling critiques at 4e. I just prefer that they be honest.

There are three types of argument I don't find honest.

1. Comparisons between 3e and 4e that don't make sense. For example, claiming that 4e is the first edition to introduce unrealistic natural healing rates. In reality, the natural healing rates in 3e and 4e are very similar. Both are unrealistic, mind you. There is a legitimate argument to be had about the realism involved, the degree to which that lack of realism is visible, and what could be done about it. But you'll never get to that discussion if you begin with erroneous accusations, and especially not if you then try to take your erroneous statement and use it as a spring board into a larger critique that you have now firmly rooted in error.

2. Statements which flat out aren't so, and which the speaker knows or should know aren't so. You can't have a rogue who uses brutal scoundrel and artful dodger powers! Yes, you can. All clerics have lasers! No, they don't. There are no rules for professions, so you can't have one! Yes, you can. The rules don't describe non combat abilities for most monsters, so they haven't got them! That isn't so. 4e is dumb because minion elder dragons don't make sense! There aren't any minion elder dragons, and if there were, that would make elder dragon minions dumb, not 4e. You get the idea. If some total forum newb says these things, I go easy, but the regulars here know this stuff, and the blatant dishonesty involved in saying some of these things can completely obscure decent points. For example, if you want to talk about ways that minion rules can generate inconsistent outcomes, be my guest. But don't open the conversation with a hypothetical Elder Wyrm Minion fighting a first level wizard armed only with a spork.

3. Perhaps most importantly, statements which pretend to be serious, but which heavily suggest that they're just cover for (or flat out expression of) gamer prejudice. This includes the "4e is like WoW/Magic/a board game/anime/etc" category of critique. My geek career has included a lot of branches of nerd-dom. And nothing bothers me more than hearing one type of geek sneer at another as if they were somehow better because of their choice of game, or hearing older gamers sneer at younger gamers as if younger gamers are some kind of lame pack of idiots instead of just younger versions of us. I don't mean to shut down all thinking along these lines (I personally think that 4e has a lot of tabletop gaming influences built into its combat), but sometimes you can hear the disgust dripping from someone's voice when they start down this line of argument. And its distasteful.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'm having trouble parsing this statement in regards to the quote, but I'm pretty sure I disagree with you. IMO, people criticize 4e not because it isn't X previous edition, but because they don't like it as much as a previous edition. That isn't simply a preference, but an opinion formed by considering what characteristics 4e has.

The quote was asking why people get upset and feel they need to respond to "criticism" of 4E, and my response is that a lot of 4E "criticism" isn't criticism. If you don't like 4E as much as a previous edition, and you dislike it because 4E is different, its a dead end discussion. There's really nothing to say beyond "sucks to be you". The more it is repeatedly said, the more irritating it is to hear, because there isn't anything to discuss. Its not something that can be fixed or addressed, and nothing anybody can say can make it better.

 

[Loonook]

If that's why they moved to 4th Edition. But I hardly think the development philosophy that launched the design of the entire system was "We need change, whether it's good or bad... let's just... I don't know, let's just change".

---

Because D&D is popular. And to a lot of people, it's very personal. Which is the point of the thread this thread is forked from. And while yes, they may have full rights to express their opinions, I don't think that many of these posters come looking for solutions, and if they do, I don't see how this community can "resolve" their personal preference. Or has a responsibility to.

Okay, first thing: yeah, I do think that it is change, and I never claimed that they were going for willy-nilly change so much as they were going for change for change's sake: You hate your living room which is painted blue and filled with furniture you find tacky. Going around making willy-nilly changes would be to throw paint all over the walls and replace all of that furniture with high-concept seating arrangements. Yeah, aesthetically some of those changes look nice (I like how the splotch works with the bronze statue of Morrus riding a small dog), but most are horrid or disjointed.

Change for change's sake is looking at that same living room and saying
"hey, you know what... I love all of the colors in this room, but it works better as a kitchen'. Maybe you have a perfectly functioning kitchen somewhere else... but you just tore out the floors, placed fixtures, etc. to make this new room work.

Maybe you needed that kitchen all along, but that 2e couch was highly comfortable, has a good ass-groove, things are working for it. And that 1e lamp was beautiful even if less technologically 'advanced' than that nice 3e sound system (a whole lot of noise and OOMPH, but only as good as you put into it).

Wow... I should stop making rants while hungry and jobless.

My stomach itches from eating wallpaper paste.

________________________

Okay, on D&D's popularity and arguments over editions: What popular product which changes doesn't have holdouts and arguments? Who here likes classic cars? Who likes to get the new sleek models? PC Users: Who enjoys using Vista? How about XP?

Yeah, apparently Cthulu isn't as popular as Dungeons and Dragons. And on a site which has the heading of ENWorld D&D/RPG News there are people arguing about D&D over other RPGs.

Popularity breeds a larger player base, which breeds more contempt in change, and makes change more difficult. You belong to the early adopters of a system which most likely 80% of the gaming population will turn over/be playing a year from now. So suffer the slings and arrows of ignominy while you step over all of those who still like the old stuff.

If you're able to accept that they may still like it later, there's always a spot on my couch, and we can spin some tunes. Just don't invite me over to your place... I don't want to have to sit in the kitchen sink .

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[JeffB]

Oh great..it's come down to arguing about the way people argue about edition X sucks

yay EnWorld

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh great..it's come down to arguing about the way people argue about edition X sucks

yay EnWorld

You win the InterWeb.


RC