D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[mhensley]

unreadable text

Is your font color unreadable on purpose?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

No you did not "merely present it as a possibility." You presented it as somthing you "...think [is] more than a little possible..."

In other words, not merely a possiblity, but something you believe based on no evidence whatsoever and felt was important to share. Please save the disengenuity and downplaying. You said it; you own it.

Yes, I own it. I said it, which is, strangely enough, what I said. Though, I did, in fact present it as a possibility, not fact that I can prove. Call it a hypothesis if you like, but I did not and do not expect it to carry any more weight than any of the other idle speculation in this thread. Feel free to assign me motives if you like, but that gets a little close to telling me what I think.

Saying such negative and spurious things as what you said about the polling data, is no different (whether intentional or not) than those who hated and attempted to sabotage 4E. Simply put; an illogical assumption at best, certainly counter-productive, and wholly falacious.

It was intentional; intended to draw a comparison to the other nonsense being bandied about here, and no less illogical, counter-productive, and falacious. I don't see you calling out anyone on the other side of the argument for it though. Why is that?

All of us have the opportunity to show how we're different than those that attacked 4E, that we've all learned from the mistakes of the past, and we're better than those that attacked 4E.

So far, there's a very vocal minority of 4E fans that are showing they're no different than the fools who bash 4E, and doing the entirety of 4E fans a huge disservice.

You're right, I'm being a jerk. Maybe you should be a moderator?

This also goes for those who like to characterize 4E as a failure ( @Jester Canuck and others), under the supposedly innocent guise of only talking about it as a business. This is also disingenuous and fallacious, and nobody here is fool enough to not know what is really being said.

Ok, here it is, even if less verbose and worded a little less emphatically... and directed at nobody in particular.

 

[darjr]

Is your font color unreadable on purpose?

I'll bet he's using the legacy style, in that style it's readable.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I agree...which is why I didn't say or imply that.

Nice try though.


Next Batter...?

No, you pretty much did imply and state that you thought I said what I did because I believe it to be true based on zero evidence, which is not the case. I believe it to be a possibility, as I said.

"...not merely a possiblity, but something you believe based on no evidence whatsoever and felt was important to share."

It is a hypothesis that fits the facts available. Time will tell.

 

[El Mahdi]

Is your font color unreadable on purpose?

I'm not sure what happened there. I didn't change it from the default color so it should have been fine (I'm assuming you run with the white background, it's readable okay with the black background). But I went into edit post, highlighted everything, and clicked on automatic for the font color. Is it readable now?

 

[El Mahdi]

It is a hypothesis that fits the facts available. Time will tell.

Wrong. It's an opinion or belief that fits only because of the complete lack of evidence for or against.

A hypothesis at least needs to have something on which to base it, not made up whole cloth from nothing. There is no basis for your conjecture.


Two batters down...Next.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Wrong. It's an opinion or belief that fits only because of the complete lack of evidence for or against.

A hypothesis at least needs to have something on which to base it, not made up whole cloth from nothing. There is no basis for your conjecture.


Two batters down...Next.

Just because you insist that I'm making it up, doesn't make it so! Fact: All surveys thus far have had the respondent indicate their edition of choice at or near the top. Hypothesis: They are using that data to weigh the responses given in that survey. Basis given. Next.

 

[darjr]

I'm not sure what happened there. I didn't change it from the default color so it should have been fine (I'm assuming you run with the white background, it's readable okay with the black background). But I went into edit post, highlighted everything, and clicked on automatic for the font color. Is it readable now?

I think vb tries to take on color options from cut and pasted text.

 

[billd91]

Just because you insist that I'm making it up, doesn't make it so! Fact: All surveys thus far have had the respondent indicate their edition of choice at or near the top. Hypothesis: They are using that data to weigh the responses given in that survey. Basis given. Next.

Is that a rational hypothesis or a paranoid delusion? It certainly seems calculated to rationalize a sense of persecution and maybe even assuage a little bit of what you called butthurt upthread.

If you feel that WotC seems to be abandoning you as a customer, I empathize. I really do, because I was in the same position back in 2007-8. WotC was moving D&D into territory I didn't particularly like so I didn't buy much of 4e and was happy to stop playing it when the campaign that we were using it in petered out in favor of games we preferred. I was told my opinions on the game were wrong, misinformed, edition warry, and a whole host of fairly rude things. I said or implied in a number of cases that I thought D&D R&D was focusing the game too much on combat, murder-hoboing, killing things and taking their stuff, and leaving much of the richness of the game's promise behind. But I don't think I ever implied they were doing so dishonestly or were deliberately minimizing a market segment's voice (I certainly never tried to do so), rather, I thought they had just tapped into an echo chamber and didn't think to look outside it or realize how small that echo chamber was. Contrast to several years later and WotC is engaged in a widely available public play test with relatively frequent surveys - they're saying they are taking a much more open view. And you're implying that they are deliberately marginalizing some of the respondents. Need you stoop to that level?

 

[Umbran]

Is that a rational hypothesis or a paranoid delusion?

Hey! Here's a novel idea! How about we never again suggest that someone in polite conversation about a hobby game is somehow mentally unbalanced? I think it would be awesome if we could treat the ideas of others with a modicum of respect, and not resort to hyperbolic suggestions deriding them!

And, since that awesomeness is part of the Rules of EN World, well, I think you see where I'm going....

If not, please PM or e-mail the moderator of your choice to discuss. Thank you.