D&D 5E Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb

[Mistwell]

I got an "everyone who has been playing the last two editions has been doing it WRONG!" vibe from the article. That, and the typical "true roleplayer" making thinly veiled attacks against char op people from atop his lofty perch.

LOL he helped write those last two editions, and he doesn't even mention the word roleplaying once. Nor do I think he implies anything about "true roleplayer" at all. He says this is about his personal experiences, and adds, "This has turned rant-ish and for that I apologize. I do not believe there is a right way or a wrong way to play this game. I know a great many people love to tinker, to build, and create. They see the character sheet as a blank screen, eager for new code, a canvas craving the brush. And that’s cool. But for me, I don’t want that experience anymore."

That's not "one true way" talk at all.

 

[Falling Icicle]

LOL he helped write those last two editions

But went out of his way to throw them under the bus in his article.

and he doesn't even mention the word roleplaying once. Nor do I think he implies anything about "true roleplayer" at all.

He didn't have to use that exact word. The implication is clear. He effectively says charop people ruined the game with their "abominations" and "creative horrors." A lot of nerves are still very raw from the edition wars, and he used some pretty charged language, going on about how great the old editions were and how the last two ruined the game. He probably didn't mean to be offensive, he just came across that way.

 

[caudor]

Two men look through the same set of bars. One sees it's dark; the other sees the stars.

 

[Agamon]

I agree with the blog post and currently play in a PF and a 4e game. I do so with others for whom the rules aren't the most important thing. I wouldn't otherwise, like with the group I currently play EotE with. They made the 13th Age game I ran for them not a lot of fun.

 

[Mistwell]

But went out of his way to throw them under the bus in his article.



He didn't have to use that exact word. The implication is clear.

If two people read the same thing, and one doesn't get that impression but the other does, the only thing obvious is it's not obvious. And as you got the same responses on the WOTC, you knew going in the implication you're claiming isn't clear at all to many people. Which means it's likely your inference.

He effectively says charop people ruined the game with their "abominations" and "creative horrors." A lot of nerves are still very raw from the edition wars, and he used some pretty charged language, going on about how great the old editions were and how the last two ruined the game. He probably didn't mean to be offensive, he just came across that way.

I got an "everyone who has been playing the last two editions has been doing it WRONG!" vibe from the article. That, and the typical "true roleplayer" making thinly veiled attacks against char op people from atop his lofty perch.

He says this is about his personal experiences, and adds, "This has turned rant-ish and for that I apologize. I do not believe there is a right way or a wrong way to play this game. I know a great many people love to tinker, to build, and create. They see the character sheet as a blank screen, eager for new code, a canvas craving the brush. And that’s cool. But for me, I don’t want that experience anymore."

That's not "one true way" talk at all, and it's not a generalized bash on char opers. You're inferring stuff not there.

 

[Falling Icicle]

If two people read the same thing, and one doesn't get that impression but the other does, the only thing obvious is it's not obvious. And as you got the same responses on the WOTC, you knew going in the implication you're claiming isn't clear at all to many people. Which means it's likely your inference.

I'm far from the only person that saw blatant edition warring in the article. You should see the thread on rpg.net about it. My criticisms of the article are extremely mild by comparison.

 

[Raith5]

I'm far from the only person that saw blatant edition warring in the article. You should see the thread on rpg.net about it. My criticisms of the article are extremely mild by comparison.

From my perspective, I agree that he was dumping on pretty distinct playstyles of 3rd and 4th ed, despite his defensive claims to the contrary. I dont think the tone is edition warring, though.

 

[Mistwell]

From my perspective, I agree that he was dumping on pretty distinct playstyles of 3rd and 4th ed, despite his defensive claims to the contrary. I dont think the tone is edition warring, though. But it is a strange thing to say on the eve of a new edition, which is meant to be a unifying edition.

He does not work for WOTC, he just posted his personal thoughts, and people took it like it was coming from WOTC...which he doesn't even work for.

 

[Raith5]

He does not work for WOTC, he just posted his personal thoughts, and people took it like it was coming from WOTC...which he doesn't even work for.

Yep, my bad. I edited out that sentence about 1 minute after I posted my comment after reading his note to that effect in the comments. I guess my point stands (but should not be targeted at him): I am excited about a new edition and want it to be broad game.

 

[Jester David]

It's blatant edition warring to us forumites who are used to trolls being slightly cagey in their wording to avoid an auto thread lock. It's edition warring to those of us who know the dance, who've made or responded to the same arguments again and again.

To someone who doesn't visit the forums regularly, who might not delve into our part of the internet, they might not realize what is considered a declaration of war.