4E being immune to criticism (forked from Sentimentality And D&D...)

[The Little Raven]

Apparently it's one step away from a window sticker of Calvin peeing on a 3E logo.

I hate those stickers. They're mean-spirited in intent and entirely against what Bill Watterson is trying to say with Calvin & Hobbes.

 

[Psion]

So... saying 3rd Edition was good, and we learned a lot from it... is an insult of some kind?

Take a look back and RC's post. The "criticisms about prior editions" is in the paragraph before the "telling customers their complaints fall on deaf ears" part.

If you are a doctor and enter a double occupancy room to diagnose the patient with the broken leg, and find that the man in the bed has no cast, you are probably diagnosing the wrong patient.

 

[cildarith]

Or maybe they'll become fed up, and buy nothing.

That would be me, unfortunately...

 

[Raven Crowking]

Here's the text of that blog post

After the shinola hit the fan, it was edited. If you go back to the threads about that blog, you can still read references to the editing. Which was a smart move, but it would have been smarter to have considered the reaction before posting it in the first place. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, the editted blog post is much, much better than the original.

The thing is, though, WotC knew that it had come up with "evolutionary" spots for 4e, and they knew that a significant number of people hadn't taken that as "mild poking of fun" (as it had, probably, been intended).

Did I claim that? I did use the word perhaps ...

Just so we're clear.

Unless someone is currently playing the older version the same way it was played unpon release, they may have a mix of nostalgia about how they used to play mixed with how they play now

If you didn't claim it earlier, I guess you're claiming it now.

If a game has been going for 30 some years ... people would likely have perfected the way to avoid running into problems. That doesn't get rid of the problems, but a problem you don't encounter is less likely to be a problem on your mind.

That is true. Of course, if you perfected the way to avoid running into problems after 30 years of work, you'd likely be justifiably peeved to discover that your method has been tossed out the window, returning the problem while simultaneously undoing your work around. Especially if that work around has worked for such a long time.

Right?


RC

 

[The Little Raven]

Take a look back and RC's post.

I wasn't speaking to RC's post. I was speaking to the response to Hussar's post about the blog post being considered an insult (whether Hussar is correct in RC meaning that is beside the point), where mmadsen bolded the part about 3rd Edition in response to Hussar, in order to emphasize it. That suggested to me that some people might be considering that bolded statement an insult of some kind, which strikes me as totally bizarre.

 

[Andor]

Forked from: Sentimentality And D&D Editions OR Happiness Is The Edition That Brings You Joy

I see it as this way. A lot of "criticism" of 4E amounts to "it isn't OD&D/1E/2E/3E" and "I prefer edition X". People may go into detail about things, but the core meaning of what they say isn't any more than that. That doesn't really qualify as criticism. You are just stating a preference or lack therof and calling it criticism.

Rubbish. Complete ad hominim garbage. I don't know about you but D&D is merely 1 (or more depending on how you look at it) of many many RPGs I have played. I've played RPGs that used d20s, d6s, percentiles, dwhatevers, custom dice, cards, and nothing at all for system resolution. I've played with and without skills, magic, tech, psi and shticks. I've played fantasy, horror, intrigue, romance, and politics. I've played in modern day earth, greyhawk, and deep space. I've played polished professional products with great art, ringbound works with clip art, and homebrews on stapled xerox.

Do not think I'm not capable of judgeing a system on it's merits and flaws beause I'm too blinded by nostalgia and worship of the only game I've ever played.

4e has good points, and bad points, just like every other game ever made. To claim that discussion of those bad points (or good points!) is nothing but grouseing about how change is bad is as if to deny the game has any flaws at all. Really? I wonder why Wotc released errata then if 4e is the most holy and perfect of all games...

Try and grasp this truth: To discuss the flaws of a game you like is not an attack on you.

 

[The Little Raven]

To discuss the flaws of a game you like is not an attack on you.

In theory, yes. In practice, however, it can be quite different. Criticizing a game is one thing, but when your criticism is framed in a way that insults the people who like that game, that is an attack, no matter how you try to spin it.

 

[Psion]

I wasn't speaking to RC's post. I was speaking to the response to Hussar's post about the blog post being considered an insult (whether Hussar is correct in RC meaning that is beside the point),

So I should have quoted Hussar rather than (or in addition to) you. Your still guilty of what my college profs would call "error carried forward." The point remains the same: who is saying that particular blog post slammed a prior edition?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I could criticize a lot about 4E. Why should I? Bottom line is it doesn't excite me. So I don't play or run it. Why bother to try and convince anyone to see things my way? Like every other edition of D&D you can play it and have fun. Thats all that matters.

You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to come in here and show us how some idiosyncrasy of the 4e rules is actually so contrary to the enjoyment of the game that those of us who play it are actually making you enjoy your life less by continuing to play.

But don't sweat it. I'm sure that someone will pick up that torch and run with it.

Full disclosure: I'm currently running a 4e campaign that has stalled due to flaky players who don't show up for games, while trying to get into someone's online 3.x game. OMG edition slut!

 

[The Little Raven]

So I should have quoted Hussar rather than (or in addition to) you. Your still guilty of what my college profs would call "error carried forward." The point remains the same: who is saying that particular blog post slammed a prior edition?

Read mmadsen's post, which I quoted. He quotes where Hussar talks about people considering that blog post an insult, and bolds a part of it in reference to that statement. The fact that he would respond to the post and highlight a section of the blog post in reference to Hussar talking about people taking insult from it implies that he is suggesting the bolded section is the part to take insult from.