As long as we are talking hypothetically...

[xechnao]

So what are we gonna do?

A. Continue the endless arguements over which side is better?
B. Accept the fact that people have different taste and move on?
C. Have one group leave and play a different RPG?
D. Compromise? Have an RPG that neither group will really like?

All of that at the same time. Seriously, this is what is really happening. Important thing is civility. Try to remain civil and respectful of each other's personalities.

 

[xechnao]

I don't think you're trying to influence the next edition.

This is directed at me personally but I do not get what you are getting at.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

All of that at the same time. Seriously, this is what is really happening. Important thing is civility. Try to remain civil and respectful of each other's personalities.

I don't think this sort of thing accomplishes much. A lot of valid discussion ends up somewhat less civil than this sort of "play nice" statement. I'm not about to hold my tongue and not disagree with somebody just because I'm supposed to "play nice".

PC is a straitjacket.

 

[xechnao]

I don't think this sort of thing accomplishes much. A lot of valid discussion ends up somewhat less civil than this sort of "play nice" statement. I'm not about to hold my tongue and not disagree with somebody just because I'm supposed to "play nice".

PC is a straitjacket.

Why can't you disagree someone while being nice at the same time? Think of what people call sportsmanship or fair play.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Why can't you disagree someone while being nice at the same time? Think of what people call sportsmanship or fair play.

Because I can't except anybody's definition of nice other than my own. I've seen some people whose definition of nice went so far as to preclude disagreeing with them. Homey don't play that.

Treat others how you would prefer to be treated yourself. By that standard, I sleep well at night.

 

[xechnao]

Because I can't except anybody's definition of nice other than my own. I've seen some people whose definition of nice went so far as to preclude disagreeing with them. Homey don't play that.

Treat others how you would prefer to be treated yourself. By that standard, I sleep well at night.

What you say it is already taken into consideration. This is why there are moderators and people accept them. There can be extreme cases where it may not work but such is the way of life for us human beings. Things are somewhat stable but never truly solid. Dynamics are a matter of existence.

 

[Cadfan]

This is a bit meta, but...

"Nice" is an interesting concept. Sometimes "nice" becomes a set of rules we follow that make us "officially" nice, while we're actually being quite unkind. Imagine a movie or a book in which a respectable victorian era woman is speaking to a young girl, and is being very catty- she's saying things which are socially acceptable to say, which are "nice," but which are carefully calculated to reduce the girl to tears. Is that person being "nice?" She's certainly being polite, and no one is likely to call her on what she's doing, and if she codes her words well enough no one will even know about her cruelty except her intended victim, but I'm not sure I'd call that "nice."

"Nice" is strange. Sometimes "nice" really just means "extremely capable of maneuvering within the social mores that govern behavior in a particular culture."

 

[Bluenose]

Hopefully I can head this off in the pass but....

"why do we assume that a fighter is weak against magic?"

This wasn't true AT ALL in pre 3e...A buck naked mid to high level fighter in pre 3.x is pretty much laughing off ANY effect that would call for a saving throw and throw in ring/cloak of protection and the only thing that's affecting him is pure damage.

Again, not picking on you personally BryonD, but your argument kind of invalidates all editions prior to 3e as in those editions, high level character by and large, became more and more resistant to saving throw effects in D&D.

I know people seem to hate on 4e for the half-level mechanic since it makes character seem to have no weaknesses but this isn't a new fangled concept IMO to D&D since as noted, character WERE supposed to get more "metal" as they levelled.

To be fair, pre 3e that same fighter would have been rather more vulnerable to pure damage from Mister Mage, as your hit dice (and hence Con bonus) stopped increasing at 9th (or was it 10th for fighters?) level. Although since nearly everything had lower hit points, this wasn't anything that made fighters any weaker. And you weren't anywhere near as vulnerable to most other magic, and kept up pretty will with other classes in NWPs which gave some useable non-combat abilities.

 

[ggroy]

I think the 'cycle' model is problematic because if memory serves, one of those 'peak years'--1982--corresponds with external interest sparked by the James Dallas Egbert case and the media frenzy surrounding the game.

Wasn't there also a "satanic panic" going on over D&D at around the same time period, or slightly later?

 

[carmachu]

A lot of the Edition Wars crap comes from the fact some people got the game they wanted, while others did not. WotC delivered the game I wanted. From a certain point of view(mine), delivering 4E was the right decision. If it wasn't the right decision TO YOU maybe you should look at yourself before attacking me or WotC.

And how are you any better when you participate in it like your doing? You got yours, as you say. Your really not much better.

Perhaps you should look at yourself for a moment.

Stop being so self centered. Think about the possibility that while an edition change could be wrong for you, it could be right for others.

You need to take your own advice there about self centeredness...