4e lovefest?

[Psion]

Hm. Is this intentional irony?

No, not at all. Are you sure you understand the meaning of the term "irony", because I don't see anything I have said here that can be even remotely construed as such.

It takes two to tango. Everyone has free will, and can choose to engage on what rhetorical level and style they wish.

Absolutely. Which is why I don't participate much in the forums these days. The designer blogs are full of rhetoric about how much fun we weren't having with 3e, and an unfortunately large segment of the 4e hopefuls went and ran with it. That's not something I care to get caught up in so I typically DON'T, but the observation having been made, I have to second it. But it goes on whether I point it out or not.

 

[blargney the second]

we're seeing the same stuff going on, albeit with more vigorous moderation.

Yay for vigorous moderation!

I honestly can't believe how polite the forums still are here. Kudos!
-blarg

 

[Umbran]

No, not at all. Are you sure you understand the meaning of the term "irony", because I don't see anything I have said here that can be even remotely construed as such.

Yes, I'm quite sure.

Look at it for a moment - You point a finger of blame, using phrasing that questions the validity of the thought process of other folks around here (via "buying in" - that's never used to say someone's thinking intelligently and clearly for themselves), perpetuating an "Us vs Them" attitude (all those 4e fans are the Bad Guys). And, right here, you question my understanding of a basic English word (as if I'm somehow unlearned or stupid) - all in the process of claiming someone else is responsible for the tone of rhetoric around here.

So, a complaint about tone that is itself hardly of stellar tone - seems pretty much the soul of irony, to me. I asked the question because you are typically bright enough to construct this sort of thing as a joke, and it was appropriate to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Psion]

Yes, I'm quite sure.

Look at it for a moment - You point a finger of blame, using phrasing that questions the validity of the thought process of other folks around here (via "buying in" - that's never used to say someone's thinking intelligently and clearly for themselves), perpetuating an "Us vs Them" attitude (all those 4e fans are the Bad Guys). And, right here, you question my understanding of a basic English word (as if I'm somehow unlearned or stupid) - all in the process of claiming someone else is responsible for the tone of rhetoric around here.

So, a complaint about tone that is itself hardly of stellar tone - seems pretty much the soul of irony, to me. I asked the question because you are typically bright enough to construct this sort of thing as a joke, and it was appropriate to give you the benefit of the doubt.

So, I already perceive an us vs. them attitude as existing. In pointing out the attitude exists, I become the villain?

You might want to check yourself on that whole "irony" thing.

I think you are so very wrong. I don't say your fun is wrong because you enjoy 4e; that's what separates me from the issue and makes what I am describing NOT what I am doing.

 

[diaglo]

I tend to be in favor of the more straightforward approach.

OD&D(1974) is the one true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.


my hat of d02 knows no limits.

 

[Darkness]

OD&D(1974) is the one true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.


my hat of d02 knows no limits.

I think this hat is an old hat.

 

[Henry]

I think this hat is an old hat.

He does know when to put a cap on it, though. If you toque everything he said at fez value, he would seem quite a bitter person, but he's quite affable in person.

 

[JohnRTroy]

He does know when to put a cap on it, though. If you toque everything he said at fez value, he would seem quite a bitter person, but he's quite affable in person.

Somewhere the spirit of Gary Gygax just read that and is laughing...

I think if you put enough puns in a sentence you can summon him, like Candyman or Bloody Mary or something, except it's all pun-based.

 

[Readerbreeder]

We're gamers. In most cases, we roll dice, we gather with friends, we swap small talk, we give high fives and shouts when someone rolls exceptionally well in a pinch, and we talk about what imaginary character we're playing next. If we can't discuss the differences and similarities in a game without tearing each other a new one, then what the Hell is wrong with us?

QFT -- I may put this as my sig for a while. I have never understood the edition flame wars (or system flame wars, or what have you). We fall into a subset of a subset on the cultural map -- why fracture ourselves further?

 

[TerraDave]

Absolutely. Which is why I don't participate much in the forums these days. The designer blogs are full of rhetoric about how much fun we weren't having with 3e, and an unfortunately large segment of the 4e hopefuls went and ran with it. That's not something I care to get caught up in so I typically DON'T, but the observation having been made, I have to second it. But it goes on whether I point it out or not.

4E and supporting "marketing" opened the door to a lot of 3E negativism? Yes, I agree, mea culpa.

BUT, well before 4E was announced, on these boards we had:

-threads specifically on the "sweat sweet spot"

-more general complaints about the complexity of 3E, difficulty of prepping 3E...and so on.

-complaints about mediocre products and concepts at the edge of/outside the core: epic play, level adjustment, and so on

-complaints about "3E quirks" (though some are also in older editions): magic item "dependence", save and die spells, AoO, etc.

-complaints about "sacred cows": vancian magic, alignment, etc.

What impressed me in those design blogs was how many of these complaints they acknowledged and responded to.

But, it is true though that those blogs and 4E in generally did seem to give an open license to attack 3E.