Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4550280" data-attributes="member: 40961">I've got my list of 4e critiques.&nbsp; And I don't get mad at people for leveling critiques at 4e.&nbsp; I just prefer that they be honest.&nbsp;There are three types of argument I don't find honest.&nbsp;1. Comparisons between 3e and 4e that don't make sense.&nbsp; For example, claiming that 4e is the first edition to introduce unrealistic natural healing rates.&nbsp; In reality, the natural healing rates in 3e and 4e are very similar.&nbsp; Both are unrealistic, mind you.&nbsp; There is a legitimate argument to be had about the realism involved, the degree to which that lack of realism is visible, and what could be done about it.&nbsp; But you'll never get to that discussion if you begin with erroneous accusations, and especially not if you then try to take your erroneous statement and use it as a spring board into a larger critique that you have now firmly rooted in error.&nbsp;2. Statements which flat out aren't so, and which the speaker knows or should know aren't so.&nbsp; You can't have a rogue who uses brutal scoundrel and artful dodger powers!&nbsp; Yes, you can.&nbsp; All clerics have lasers!&nbsp; No, they don't.&nbsp; There are no rules for professions, so you can't have one!&nbsp; Yes, you can.&nbsp; The rules don't describe non combat abilities for most monsters, so they haven't got them!&nbsp; That isn't so.&nbsp; 4e is dumb because minion elder dragons don't make sense!&nbsp; There aren't any minion elder dragons, and if there were, that would make elder dragon minions dumb, not 4e.&nbsp; You get the idea.&nbsp; If some total forum newb says these things, I go easy, but the regulars here know this stuff, and the blatant dishonesty involved in saying some of these things can completely obscure decent points.&nbsp; For example, if you want to talk about ways that minion rules can generate inconsistent outcomes, be my guest.&nbsp; But don't open the conversation with a hypothetical Elder Wyrm Minion fighting a first level wizard armed only with a spork.&nbsp;3. Perhaps most importantly, statements which pretend to be serious, but which heavily suggest that they're just cover for (or flat out expression of) gamer prejudice.&nbsp; This includes the &quot;4e is like WoW/Magic/a board game/anime/etc&quot; category of critique.&nbsp; My geek career has included a lot of branches of nerd-dom.&nbsp; And nothing bothers me more than hearing one type of geek sneer at another as if they were somehow better because of their choice of game, or hearing older gamers sneer at younger gamers as if younger gamers are some kind of lame pack of idiots instead of just younger versions of us.&nbsp; I don't mean to shut down all thinking along these lines (I personally think that 4e has a lot of tabletop gaming influences built into its combat), but sometimes you can hear the disgust dripping from someone's voice when they start down this line of argument.&nbsp; And its distasteful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4550280, member: 40961"] I've got my list of 4e critiques. And I don't get mad at people for leveling critiques at 4e. I just prefer that they be honest. There are three types of argument I don't find honest. 1. Comparisons between 3e and 4e that don't make sense. For example, claiming that 4e is the first edition to introduce unrealistic natural healing rates. In reality, the natural healing rates in 3e and 4e are very similar. Both are unrealistic, mind you. There is a legitimate argument to be had about the realism involved, the degree to which that lack of realism is visible, and what could be done about it. But you'll never get to that discussion if you begin with erroneous accusations, and especially not if you then try to take your erroneous statement and use it as a spring board into a larger critique that you have now firmly rooted in error. 2. Statements which flat out aren't so, and which the speaker knows or should know aren't so. You can't have a rogue who uses brutal scoundrel and artful dodger powers! Yes, you can. All clerics have lasers! No, they don't. There are no rules for professions, so you can't have one! Yes, you can. The rules don't describe non combat abilities for most monsters, so they haven't got them! That isn't so. 4e is dumb because minion elder dragons don't make sense! There aren't any minion elder dragons, and if there were, that would make elder dragon minions dumb, not 4e. You get the idea. If some total forum newb says these things, I go easy, but the regulars here know this stuff, and the blatant dishonesty involved in saying some of these things can completely obscure decent points. For example, if you want to talk about ways that minion rules can generate inconsistent outcomes, be my guest. But don't open the conversation with a hypothetical Elder Wyrm Minion fighting a first level wizard armed only with a spork. 3. Perhaps most importantly, statements which pretend to be serious, but which heavily suggest that they're just cover for (or flat out expression of) gamer prejudice. This includes the "4e is like WoW/Magic/a board game/anime/etc" category of critique. My geek career has included a lot of branches of nerd-dom. And nothing bothers me more than hearing one type of geek sneer at another as if they were somehow better because of their choice of game, or hearing older gamers sneer at younger gamers as if younger gamers are some kind of lame pack of idiots instead of just younger versions of us. I don't mean to shut down all thinking along these lines (I personally think that 4e has a lot of tabletop gaming influences built into its combat), but sometimes you can hear the disgust dripping from someone's voice when they start down this line of argument. And its distasteful. [/QUOTE]

Verification