the tangible fact is that at least half of D&D sales are actually Pathfinder sales these days - in the wake of 4e. This fact has never occurred before the release of 4e.
This has been addressed before. That's the result of the combination of the OGL + a new edition. If 2E introduced the OGL, then a big split would have occurred when 3E was released. It's not about 4E, it's about a new edition and the ability of other companies to continue the old one. The possibility did not exist before 4E's release, but trying to say it has something to do with 4E specifically, rather than it being the first new edition under a certain set of circumstances, is untenable.
"New editions are divisive" is not contentious. "4E is far more divisive than any other new edition" is contentious.
You are putting words into my mouth that I haven't said - or even emoted - and extrapolating on a view - 'this isn't a rpg' - to make it into a personal attack.
I didn't make the statement 'not a rpg' nor do I hold that view about 4e. I merely analyzed that statement.
Not word-for-word, no. But you did say:
My feelings on later editions of D&D was that game designers wanted to regress the game back into a clearly defined tactical wargame (and largely ignore 35 Years of RPG evolution in the process). I don't roleplay in order to collect miniatures and play that type of game - not that I have moral issues against 'team work' or the like, but because I get my fun from other things.
You can quibble that you didn't actually say "it's not an RPG", but you did say "it was designed to be a clearly-defined tactical wargame." and that it "regressed" and "ignored 35 years of RPG evolution". Do you understand my confusion?
'Not an RPG' is not a personal attack, because it is not an attack on a person. It's an attack on a game.
Sorry, but you do need to consider the implications of what you say. If you say "This is a game for idiots" you can't then claim "I didn't call you an idiot, I called the game that you play a game for idiots" and expect to be let off.
Wow, no motives were ascribed. I put forth a theory and then... well, you read too much into it.
You did say:
Actually I'd say it's more because your favored edition is the one being spoken of most with the impending change looming. You guys, with what I would consider good reasoning, are defending your favored game as a new one is coming along. You hope by being vocal you can preserve aspects of the game you most admire.
You're telling people not only what they're doing but why they're doing it. If that isn't ascribing motivations, I don't know what is.
Don't get me wrong, I don't consider this some big offensive thing you've done here, that you should kneel before me and beg my forgiveness. I just want to be clear and point out there's more than that reason to be having this discussion.
