Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4550313" data-attributes="member: 2067">I don't understand this thread......it starts out with Ronseur's quote as something I think has a very true ring to it.thecasualoblivion says &quot;No. A lot of it is just stating a preference, and therefore is not criticism&quot; Which I don't think makes a whole lot of sense, because stating a preference *is* criticism.And then a lot of posters come on board to say &quot;I have some 4e criticisms that somehow avoid the 'just stating a preference' criteria&quot; which don't really avoid stating a preference.I don't get it. Are we trying to say that some preferences are more valid than others? That some flaws of 4e are &quot;valid&quot; flaws and that other flaws are &quot;invalid&quot; flaws just because the criticizer is a sentimental fool? 4e isn't immune to criticism. All criticism is, by its very nature, fairly subjective. No critic is above their own emotional likes and dislikes, observering from some hypethetical neutral ground of pure objectivity. There is no such thing.There can be learned criticism and ignorant criticism, and learned criticism tends to be a better argument for or against something, but that doesn't make ignorant criticism invalid, it just makes it unrefined -- a blunt instrument of gut feeling where a learned criticism is a pointed scalpel of at least rationalization.But ultimately, it's all about whether or not you like something, which is NEVER a rational, objective choice, no matter what the sophists tell themselves. 4e can be disliked for specific, narrow reasons (&quot;Ah. The Skill Challenges system is unbalanced!&quot;) or for general, broad reasons (&quot;I HATE THE ART RARGLEFARGLE!&quot;), or for a combination (&quot;I prefer classless games, and I love gnomes!&quot;).Valid criticisms are surprisingly easy to make about...well...anything. 4e is no exception. Just because a criticism comes from a position of &quot;OD&amp;D IS THE ONE TRUE GAME&quot; doesn't make it any less valid. It's a fair cop -- 4e is not OD&amp;D, and you won't be happy with 4e if you think OD&amp;D is the one true game. Totally legit. You have every right to complain on ENWorld or the WotC boards or all across the Internet high and low about how 4e would be better if it took more ideas from OD&amp;D. That's entirely fair.People will disagree with you, and they will be justified, too, but you can scream it all you want without having that be an invalid criticism. It's valid. It's not entirely *relevant* in many respects, but it's still entirely fair to make.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 4550313, member: 2067"] I don't understand this thread... ...it starts out with Ronseur's quote as something I think has a very true ring to it. thecasualoblivion says "No. A lot of it is just stating a preference, and therefore is not criticism" Which I don't think makes a whole lot of sense, because stating a preference *is* criticism. And then a lot of posters come on board to say "I have some 4e criticisms that somehow avoid the 'just stating a preference' criteria" which don't really avoid stating a preference. I don't get it. Are we trying to say that some preferences are more valid than others? That some flaws of 4e are "valid" flaws and that other flaws are "invalid" flaws just because the criticizer is a sentimental fool? 4e isn't immune to criticism. All criticism is, by its very nature, fairly subjective. No critic is above their own emotional likes and dislikes, observering from some hypethetical neutral ground of pure objectivity. There is no such thing. There can be learned criticism and ignorant criticism, and learned criticism tends to be a better argument for or against something, but that doesn't make ignorant criticism invalid, it just makes it unrefined -- a blunt instrument of gut feeling where a learned criticism is a pointed scalpel of at least rationalization. But ultimately, it's all about whether or not you like something, which is NEVER a rational, objective choice, no matter what the sophists tell themselves. 4e can be disliked for specific, narrow reasons ("Ah. The Skill Challenges system is unbalanced!") or for general, broad reasons ("I HATE THE ART RARGLEFARGLE!"), or for a combination ("I prefer classless games, and I love gnomes!"). Valid criticisms are surprisingly easy to make about...well...anything. 4e is no exception. Just because a criticism comes from a position of "OD&D IS THE ONE TRUE GAME" doesn't make it any less valid. It's a fair cop -- 4e is not OD&D, and you won't be happy with 4e if you think OD&D is the one true game. Totally legit. You have every right to complain on ENWorld or the WotC boards or all across the Internet high and low about how 4e would be better if it took more ideas from OD&D. That's entirely fair. People will disagree with you, and they will be justified, too, but you can scream it all you want without having that be an invalid criticism. It's valid. It's not entirely *relevant* in many respects, but it's still entirely fair to make. [/QUOTE]

Verification