Are people still mad about . . .

[Axolotl]

But, I do realize that we're not going to agree on this. All I can do is continue to ask, "How is this insulting?" Yes, I understand that you feel insulted by X. In order that you are not insulted again, can you explain how X offends you?

I'll post the professions quote again with the operative part highlighted

"When was the last time you saw a PC make a profession check that had a useful impact on the game? (Hint: If it was recently, your game is probably not as much fun as D&D should be.)"

If you don't see how people would be offended by that statement then I don't think anyone will ever be able to explain it to you. People don't like being told how a game should be done, they didn't like in 1st edition and the don't like it now. Also these statement aren't isolated statements, they're all part of a contiued tone that was throughout the columns previewing 4E.

Just to reiterate I'm a fan of 4e now and was then, but I still found the marketing insulting at times.

 

[Hussar]

Some one who has 1: never seen your game run, 2: has no info on your game and 3: has never even meet you. Telling you your playing wrong is a bit insulting yes.


If they had said something like "We have taken the feedback from 8 years of game play and it seems that in most games profession and craft skills are often not used or handwaved. " Then I am guessing many people that were insulted would not have been

The "your game is not as fun as it should be" is like me stating "People with red hair are bad public speakers" with the same amount of data they had about my game As I do about the ability of red heads to speak in public

But, does the quote ACTUALLY apply to you? Does it apply to anyone you game with or have gamed with? And, if it does apply, is it wrong?

See, no, they did not say "People with red hair are public speakers" because, obviously, there are numerous people out there with red hair.

What they said was "People with purple beaver tails pinned to their ears are bad public speakers".

See the difference?

I'll post the professions quote again with the operative part highlighted

Quote:
"When was the last time you saw a PC make a profession check that had a useful impact on the game? (Hint: If it was recently, your game is probably not as much fun as D&D should be.)"

If you don't see how people would be offended by that statement then I don't think anyone will ever be able to explain it to you. People don't like being told how a game should be done, they didn't like in 1st edition and the don't like it now. Also these statement aren't isolated statements, they're all part of a contiued tone that was throughout the columns previewing 4E.

Just to reiterate I'm a fan of 4e now and was then, but I still found the marketing insulting at times.

My point is, it's only insulting if you emphasize that particular interpretation, and even then, not so much. Again, does this quote ACTUALLY apply to you or anyone you know or have known in the past?

Everyone is focusing on the fact that they had the temerity to suggest that a particular game might be less fun than it could be while entirely ignoring the context of the statement. Pretty much how every one of these things has gone.

Yes, they did say that a game might be less fun. Oh shock and horror. But, they did so in a context which, in all likelihood applies to an extremely small number of people, if anyone at all.

Yet, oh my god, they criticized a GAME!!!! BURN THEM!!!

 

[Hussar]

Isn't it funny. Twenty or thirty years ago, Gary Gygax states that if you aren't playing the rules that he wrote, you aren't playing D&D. And some people still applaud that sentiment.

Thirty years later, a Dev suggests that you "could be having more fun" and gets pilloried.

The times do change no?

 

[Axolotl]

Yes, they did say that a game might be less fun. Oh shock and horror. But, they did so in a context which, in all likelihood applies to an extremely small number of people, if anyone at all.

You really don't get it do you? The thing people have a problem with is the implication that styles of play are not as fun as they should be. Do you realy not see why people dislike that sentiment?

Isn't it funny. Twenty or thirty years ago, Gary Gygax states that if you aren't playing the rules that he wrote, you aren't playing D&D. And some people still applaud that sentiment.

Thirty years later, a Dev suggests that you "could be having more fun" and gets pilloried.

The times do change no?

Only a small set of peopl applaud Gygax for telling people how to play and even then they're mainly agreeing wth his style of play. I've seen far more people critisi him for telling people how to play than I've seen any other comments on Gygax.

 

[Mark]

Twenty or thirty years ago, Gary Gygax states that if you aren't playing the rules that he wrote, you aren't playing D&D.

Stated where, when?

Thirty years later, a Dev suggests that you "could be having more fun" and gets pilloried.

Where is this quote? Link?


I do not recall either of the above attributions?

 

[SkidAce]

Isn't it funny. Twenty or thirty years ago, Gary Gygax states that if you aren't playing the rules that he wrote, you aren't playing D&D. And some people still applaud that sentiment.

Thirty years later, a Dev suggests that you "could be having more fun" and gets pilloried.

The times do change no?

To be honest with you, we laughed (in fun) at Gary when we saw that quote because we had so many house rules. DnD was our beginners toolbox and we added to it.

And no, I can't remember where we read/heard it...there's some implications for you.

 

[nedjer]

Clearly the need to hack on about editions, what Gary did or didn't say and generally embed daggers in the back of the lumbering zombie that is what remains of the tabletop industry is almost inexhaustable.

I feel driven to direct your collective fury to an even greater evil that may let you purge all this internal hatred. Go here, and they dare to suggest that AD&D isn't the best game in the universe for everything. Yeah, they even post again and suggest that other games could be better for your brain. Surely 3.5 and 4e can unite to contain this 'clear and present' heresy?

 

[Piratecat]

Stated where, when?

I was standing in my high school lunch room, reading Dragon Magazine with my friends, when we read it in one of his editorials. That puts it between September '81 to May '82.

 

[Scribble]

I was standing in my high school lunch room, reading Dragon Magazine with my friends, when we read it in one of his editorials. That puts it between September '81 to May '82.

You were allowed to stand in the lunch room?

We got in trouble if we were standing for anything other then walking to/from te lunch lines... (But we could go outside to stand.)

 

[Mark]

I was standing in my high school lunch room, reading Dragon Magazine with my friends, when we read it in one of his editorials. That puts it between September '81 to May '82.

If the wording being used here is anything like the original quote, I'm guessing there is a context to it that doesn't become apparent when taken on its own. At the heart of all variations of the rules was that they are guidelines and that a DM needed to do much of the adjudicating on the fly. Such a sentiment as attributed above runs counter to this.

Anyone else have the quote and article in question?