Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9228673" data-attributes="member: 6877472">You're going to find people who have a very traditional view of things in any fandom.&nbsp; &quot;They changed it, now it sucks&quot; is the rallying cry of many flame wars.&nbsp; It may be forgotten now, but in late 3.5, there was as serious debate raging against the very concept of &quot;Char Op&quot;, saying that it was the death of the game, and other such hysterics.And from an outside perspective, people who say &quot;3.5 sucks because [insert Theory Op build here] is a thing&quot;, completely ignoring the fact that only a DM who is asleep at the wheel would let any such shenanigans occur in an actual game.&nbsp; In light of this, the idea that someone is going to reject a setting based on &quot;Char Op&quot; thinking isn't really unbelievable, I suppose.&nbsp; The idea that someone would fire off post after post trying to discredit it as a thought experiment* was what I found a bit extreme.*Well, Tippy himself claimed this was exactly the setting his play group used.&nbsp; So take that with a grain of salt.I mean, it's like people who hated Eberron because it was &quot;too gonzo&quot; and had &quot;too much magic and busted stuff&quot; in it, despite the fact it was designed to work with 3.5, where other settings kept trying to make it conform to their worlds instead of the other way around.They didn't want this &quot;anime stuff&quot; to be a part of &quot;their&quot; game.&nbsp; You saw that with psionics.&nbsp; You saw that with the 3e Warlock.&nbsp; You saw that with the Tome of Battle.&nbsp; There's always going to be those people who think D&amp;D can only be played one way, and hate the idea that some other table is not only doing something different, but having (gasp!) fun while doing it!Stop having fun!&nbsp; D&amp;D is serious business!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9228673, member: 6877472"] You're going to find people who have a very traditional view of things in any fandom. "They changed it, now it sucks" is the rallying cry of many flame wars. It may be forgotten now, but in late 3.5, there was as serious debate raging against the very concept of "Char Op", saying that it was the death of the game, and other such hysterics. And from an outside perspective, people who say "3.5 sucks because [insert Theory Op build here] is a thing", completely ignoring the fact that only a DM who is asleep at the wheel would let any such shenanigans occur in an actual game. In light of this, the idea that someone is going to reject a setting based on "Char Op" thinking isn't really unbelievable, I suppose. The idea that someone would fire off post after post trying to discredit it as a thought experiment* was what I found a bit extreme. *Well, Tippy himself claimed this was exactly the setting his play group used. So take that with a grain of salt. I mean, it's like people who hated Eberron because it was "too gonzo" and had "too much magic and busted stuff" in it, despite the fact it was designed to work with 3.5, where other settings kept trying to make it conform to their worlds instead of the other way around. They didn't want this "anime stuff" to be a part of "their" game. You saw that with psionics. You saw that with the 3e Warlock. You saw that with the Tome of Battle. There's always going to be those people who think D&D can only be played one way, and hate the idea that some other table is not only doing something different, but having (gasp!) fun while doing it! Stop having fun! D&D is serious business! [/QUOTE]

Verification