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

[I'm A Banana]

Man, this thread is all over the place....but that's probably a good thing.

For my mileage, I admit I'm a very acidic critic, and that I will defend criticisms over praises most of the time, but that's not really founded in a preference for any edition. I can see a definite logic behind each and every choice in 4e, and I'm more interested in discovering how that logic meets certain goals, and fails to meet others, and how things could have gone differently (such as figuring out the merits of certain goals as opposed to others).

What probably most annoys me about a lot of the Edition Wars is when one side assumes the other is somehow illegitimate.

When a older-edition fan claims that 4e destroys everything great about D&D, it annoys me because it assumes that the people who love 4e aren't "true fans" of D&D, and are thus unfit to comment on what "D&D" should be. It's more interesting for me to see where playstyles differ, and how 4e may have subtly changed or continued to change the assumed playstyle (cementing a move from "dungeon exploration" to "combat encounters" that was probably begun long ago, for instance).

When a 4e fan claims that someone's problem with 4e isn't really a problem if you're creative enough, it annoys me because it assumes that the person is just being obstinate, rather than have a genuine issue.

That's what annoyed me about the title of the thread this got forked from. It seems to want to make the argument that a criticism of 4e isn't legit because it's somehow sentimentally rooted.

I like the discussions, I like figuring out how people play and what they play and the different playstyles and why certain games hit them better than others. This is why I am such an acidic critic at times: so I can make my games (and, ideally, others' games) better.

What I don't like is when one side or the other tries to pre-emptively get the LAST WORD in by coloring most criticism or most praise as somehow invalid.

There is no last word. 4e will always be criticized, even into 5e, and those criticism will mostly have a point to them -- the critics aren't just sentimental grognards who fear change. And regardless of the criticism, 4e will probably last about 6-10 years, and have a lot of totally logical fans who aren't just rabid fanboys of the fresh new thing.

I say this as a 4e player, and (recently) a 4e DM, and a HUGELY VOCAL 4e critic. This isn't about being RIGHT. This is about discussing what we like, what we don't like, and what might be the best way for WotC to give most of us what we like without alienating most of those that don't like certain parts of it.

That discussion is interesting.

But it's not one that you can win.

Don't try to win. Just try to learn.

 

[Hussar]

I was unaware that the original blog posts were edited. Anyone have the originals?

I was just going off what was there now. Raven Crowking (despite repeatedly feeling the need to tell everyone that he's not listening to me ) pointed to that specific blog post and I looked at it. There's nothing particularly insulting. Yet Raven Crowking claims that the post was edited.

Yet, I look at This post on En World, which has the whole article quoted, and nothing is different.

And, here we have Raven Crowking taking offense TO THE SAME TEXT THAT'S IN THE ARTICLE NOW.

No consipiracy theory. No rewriting. Yet, how far people will go to try to prove how Evil WOTC is. To the point where they claim that the Dev's go back and edit their own blogs after the fact. THIS is what drives me crazy. Completely fabricated points, built up from pet theories and constructive quoting and hazy history.

 

[firesnakearies]

This isn't about being RIGHT. This is about discussing what we like, what we don't like, and what might be the best way for WotC to give most of us what we like without alienating most of those that don't like certain parts of it.

That discussion is interesting.

But it's not one that you can win.

Don't try to win. Just try to learn.

I agree with this!



$

 

[Banshee16]

"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."

And what about if one says that 3E had this problem, and 4E has this problem, but I happened to like the failed manner in which 2nd or 3E tried to fix the problem, over the failed manner in which 4E tried to fix the problem?

Banshee

 

[WalterKovacs]

And what about if one says that 3E had this problem, and 4E has this problem, but I happened to like the failed manner in which 2nd or 3E tried to fix the problem, over the failed manner in which 4E tried to fix the problem?

Banshee

Than you prefer those editions. If they went with the same method of solving the same problems again, they would just be going over the same ground, not offering anything new and would be neither be enticing to people who like the older editions, warts and all, nor would it be appealing to people who are looking for something different.

A system that tried to please everyone would ultimately fail. A system that tries to win over people who don't feel there is a great problem, or that the solutions in place are "good enough" are likely not going to convert either. Making something different gives a better chance of getting people who don't want to play other editions, as opposed to not only convincing someone that it's "just like" the older edition so they'll play it ... but also that it's worth buying instead of just using the older edition.

 

[pawsplay]

they went with the same method of solving the same problems again, they would just be going over the same ground, not offering anything new and would be neither be enticing to people who like the older editions, warts and all, nor would it be appealing to people who are looking for something different.

A system that tried to please everyone would ultimately fail. A system that tries to win over people who don't feel there is a great problem, or that the solutions in place are "good enough" are likely not going to convert either. Making something different gives a better chance of getting people who don't want to play other editions, as opposed to not only convincing someone that it's "just like" the older edition so they'll play it ... but also that it's worth buying instead of just using the older edition.

I think that's part of what fuels some anti-4e bitterness. I personally was looking forward to a fourth edition... but one and a half to two years further down the road, and built on the foundation laid out by 3.5. I can't speak for everyone, but I personally feel disappointed that 3.5 was never "fixed," but rather, the system was essentially replaced with another system with similar aims but an entirely different form and guided by a new philosophy.

 

[Shadeydm]

I was unaware that the original blog posts were edited. Anyone have the originals?

I was just going off what was there now. Raven Crowking (despite repeatedly feeling the need to tell everyone that he's not listening to me ) pointed to that specific blog post and I looked at it. There's nothing particularly insulting. Yet Raven Crowking claims that the post was edited.

Yet, I look at This post on En World, which has the whole article quoted, and nothing is different.

And, here we have Raven Crowking taking offense TO THE SAME TEXT THAT'S IN THE ARTICLE NOW.

No consipiracy theory. No rewriting. Yet, how far people will go to try to prove how Evil WOTC is. To the point where they claim that the Dev's go back and edit their own blogs after the fact. THIS is what drives me crazy. Completely fabricated points, built up from pet theories and constructive quoting and hazy history.

Are you denying that the article was edited from it's originally posted form and seriously toned down? Then again I suppose revisionist history works just fine when the original is lost.

 

[cwhs01]

Don't try to win. Just try to learn.

Take a bow mr.midget, cause you've just won the thread

IMO there is no other reason to have these kinds of discussion threads than to learn of potential problems of the rulesets, of mechanics or fluff, and search for solutions.

If wotc listens in to what we come up with, thats just a bonus. But if we bitch and moan enough, and claim we have circumstantial evidence for them eating kittens, that probably won't happen.

So, lets just all be friends, yes?

 

[Hussar]

Are you denying that the article was edited from it's originally posted form and seriously toned down? Then again I suppose revisionist history works just fine when the original is lost.

Look at the En World thread that I linked to. Look at the quotes, not just the original, but the ones that people brought forward to have a problem with. They are exactly the same.

I tried the Wayback Machine, but, came up empty.

I read through the thread that I linked to and can find nothing to indicate that there were any changes in the original post. If it was changed, it was done pretty darn stealthily.

From where I'm standing I saw all sorts of people getting all bent out of shape over what other people said WOTC was saying without bothering to read the originals at all. For months before the release, every single post that came out of WOTC was just throwing chum to sharks. People would jump up and down screaming at the top of their lungs about how WOTC was bashing 3e and other editions. Then, when you actually looked at what they wrote, it wasn't all that bad by and large.

Yet, a year later, people are still looking for stuff to get pissed off about.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I think that's part of what fuels some anti-4e bitterness. I personally was looking forward to a fourth edition... but one and a half to two years further down the road, and built on the foundation laid out by 3.5. I can't speak for everyone, but I personally feel disappointed that 3.5 was never "fixed," but rather, the system was essentially replaced with another system with similar aims but an entirely different form and guided by a new philosophy.

At the same time, while it may be a legitimate complaint, it's also a bit unrealistic.

Ultimately, they would want as wide of an audience as possible for a new edition. This means:

(A) Release it earlier enough that people getting "tired" of the older system have not yet stopped playing altogether

(B) It is different enough from the old system to be an alternative

A fixed version of 3.5 wouldn't be enough change for people that have issues with some of the fundamental elements of 3.5, and it would need to both be a big enough change from 3.5 to encourage players that like 3.5 to update ... but then they risk changing things they actually like about the game.

Ultimately, 4e does not cause 3.5 to stop existing, nor did it get rid of 3, or it get rid of 2, etc, etc, etc ... people have the option to use the older editions, or the newer editions. Another patch of 3.5 wouldn't be a new edition, it would be more rules added to the same thing. Considering one of the complaints levied against 4e is the lack of options ... having more editions to pick from is a good thing. While 4e does prevent, to an extent, further development of 3.5, it does not prevent anyone from playing it. 4e not getting made, on the other hand, would definitely involve people not having been able to play it .