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

[thecasualoblivion]

I stand behind my assertion that 4E is a supers game. Those who play it as a fantasy system are not "wrong" and may think anything that they wish. I could take the Marvel rpg and create fantasy characters and play that as fantasy too and it wouldn't be "wrong" either if I thought that would work for me.

Nice backtracking. It still stands that there was more than a small taste of agression in the original statement.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It's more a question about finding new players or players in a new environment with ready access to the materials. It can be hard enough to find decent players for the current edition of D&D (whatever that current edition is), but it gets harder for previous editions as they become less and less current.

This is a legitimate concern, and I don't think there is an easy answer to it. I think this is a big part of what makes fans of older editions upset, even though they don't often say it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's more a question about finding new players or players in a new environment with ready access to the materials. It can be hard enough to find decent players for the current edition of D&D (whatever that current edition is), but it gets harder for previous editions as they become less and less current.

I can see that, to some extent.

But imagine you got me as a gamer in your group? Do you think it's fair that I have to play 3.5 if I'd rather play 4E (except 4E doesn't exist)?
But maybe you couldn't even get me as a 3.5 player. Maybe you only could get me as a Shadowrun or Iron Heroes player. As a DM, I already switched to IH several months before the 4E announcement.

There are two aspects here:
1) Just because 3.5 might still be the latest edition of D&D doesn't mean you will find players for it. It might still be a declining game. Many 4E fans got tired of 3E. Then there are others that play 3E and 4E - they would probably play 3E and maybe any other game if 4E didn't exist. Sure, 4E speeds up any potential decline, but wouldn't it still happen - and how far in the future are you planning for the worry of finding a potential player?

2) Some give me the impression that he would be better off if a 4E fan would still be playing 3E and be a potential player in his group. But why should a 4E have to "suffer" playing a system that doesn't match his priorities as well as 4E now does for another players sake? Isn't that wrong and unfair?
Well, I suppose it beats not playing at all, but I could say the same thing for 3E players.

 

[Obryn]

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.

Erm, if the quote on ENWorld dated 9/5/07 hasn't been doctored, then it matches what mmadsen posted earlier this thread.

Now, Glyfair's post was edited, but I haven't found anything in the followups that indicates Glyfair would have changed his quote to a new, revised version. I don't really know why he would.

So yes, I'd say he is saying it hasn't been edited and toned down; and, what's more, I believe it.

-O

 

[Obryn]

It's more a question about finding new players or players in a new environment with ready access to the materials. It can be hard enough to find decent players for the current edition of D&D (whatever that current edition is), but it gets harder for previous editions as they become less and less current.

As a suggestion? Find some players and get them into the game by running what they want to play.

After they learn to trust you as a DM, start suggesting other games that you're more interested in running.

It takes some time and work, yeah, but it's rough finding new players for both an unfamiliar DM and an unfamiliar game. If you can remove one or the other concern, you're in a better spot than you were in before.

-O

 

[Raven Crowking]

Erm, if the quote on ENWorld dated 9/5/07 hasn't been doctored, then it matches what mmadsen posted earlier this thread.

Now, Glyfair's post was edited, but I haven't found anything in the followups that indicates Glyfair would have changed his quote to a new, revised version. I don't really know why he would.

So yes, I'd say he is saying it hasn't been edited and toned down; and, what's more, I believe it.

-O

Last edited by Glyfair; 7th September 2007 at 03:48 PM..

Two days after the original post, and after the blog update.


RC

 

[Obryn]

last edited by glyfair; 7th september 2007 at 03:48 pm..

Two days after the original post, and after the blog update.


Rc

...

now, glyfair's post was edited, but i haven't found anything in the followups that indicates glyfair would have changed his quote to a new, revised version. I don't really know why he would.

-o

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Are you making the claim that it was edited? Do you have any evidence? A forum post from the time at which the article was edited showing the different versions would be fine. A cached google page would be fine. Nothing disappears on the internet anymore. If you want to make a claim, present evidence. Otherwise, it's just a conspiracy theory. Personally, I don't remember there having been an edit on anything except the implements article.

I'm sorry, but I don't just take people's word for it when they start up with ungrounded accusations. Especially given that Hussar's interpretation--that people read the blog, played Chinese whispers, and came up with something more controversial than what was actually posted on the blog--seems reasonable.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Last edited by Glyfair; 7th September 2007 at 03:48 PM..

Two days after the original post, and after the blog update.


RC

And what did he change?

 

[phloog]

This is an "i hate apples because they aren't oranges" type of argument. And highly irrelevant and very counterproductive.

I think that the proper way to apply any apples/oranges analogy is this:

"I don't like apples, and yet WOTC has begun making apples where before they were making oranges."

In addition, despite the fact that they are now clearly producing apples, they have chosen to continue to label the crates "Oranges".

I will agree that specifics are always better than just 'it doesn't feel like X edition', but I guess I'm not sure how you discuss what you don't like about a newer version of a product without at least the possibiity of discussing what you liked about the old version. To continue to use your fruit analogy but in support of your desire for specifics: perhaps you prefer the color orange, or the lack of a bitter core, or you like the smell of oranges. So I can see a reason to call for specifics. I don't like (for example) the ramped up first level power, the combat focus of ALL classes, the increased emphasis on tactical boardplay, etc.

And of course many wouldn't feel so strongly about any of this if WOTC had not tried to force everyone to produce apples and stop providing oranges, using their market share and resources to convince everyone that apples are indeed the only fruit worth having. If anyone chooses to provide apples, they are legally required to stop producing oranges...that's bound to upset people....

...and can lead to scurvy.