Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9601702" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Nobody told the 4e critics that it wasn't possible to not enjoy 4e.Nobody acts like 5e doesn't even deserve to be called "D&D." They'd be laughed out of the room, even by me.Nobody makes up fictional rule after fictional rule to lambast 5e and show how god-awful it must be, despite such rules being oftentimes literally the antithesis of the written text.I, personally, try to be respectful to others preferences--so long as those preferences are not predicated on "two for me, none for you" type things, since I have taken issue with preferences that appeared so in this thread--while critiquing design. And I've taken plenty of shots at 5e's design. I've never, ever, hidden my criticisms of 5e. I am well known on this forum as a critic thereof, and for being someone who thinks 4e got an utterly and objectively unfair "review" from a lot of people. (Note the quotes. Plenty of people who criticized 4e never even read it.)So...no. I'm not "doing what those who liked 3.x and dumped on 4e did." As for why I do it? Because this is the only way I get to talk about D&D at all. Because I enjoy engaging with others and learning from their perspectives, even if I ultimately disagree with those perspectives. Because, in sifting through the dross, I occasionally find a nugget of gold. Because I believe that, in contributing to the criticism of those parts of 5e I dislike, I can contribute to possible change; further, because I believe that it is better to try to pursue possible change even if I might fail, than it is to throw up my hands and say "nothing can be done!", whether that be in TTRPGs or in politics or in religion (because believe me, I have plenty of criticisms of things people of my overall religious group have done!) or in anything really.Now. What is the point of your argument, here? Because it seems to me that it is doing up to three things:1. "Look at how awful this person is. Clearly their arguments aren't worth listening to." That's ad hominem, and I should think that if you were going to moralize at me, you'd avoid using such a tactic in the very same breath.2. "Aha, I caught you! Trying to sneak your way past the defenses? Well it isn't gonna work!" Which, as noted, is ridiculous because I've never made even the slightest effort to conceal my criticism of 5e--not only do I see no point, I see plenty of point in NOT concealing that. Plus...it's not "a" thread. It's a bazillion.3. "Nobody who doesn't like something should be allowed to talk about it." Which...would be rather a spicy argument, if you are in fact making it. But that does seem to be the logical consequence of your position: folks who don't like something shouldn't participate in discussion about it. If you don't like something more than you dislike it, it's inappropriate for you to speak up.Oh, and with the lovely extra spicy bit that this also means I wouldn't be allowed to participate in a thread that draws direct and explicit comparisons to something I do quite love (despite being aware of various, sometimes serious, flaws therein!), because that thread is also about something I don't like. So now, it wouldn't just be that I'm not allowed to talk about things I don't like, but specifically folks who don't like 4e and do like 5e are allowed to talk about 4e. Which, again if you're making the argument that I shouldn't talk about things I don't like, but the OP and several posters even on the very first page are well within their rights to talk about things they don't like, then it begs the question why this is acceptable for 5e fans to do, but not acceptable for 4e fans to do.</blockquote>

Verification