Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4684636" data-attributes="member: 2067">One thing that is not helpful in this convo:"I'm glad that 4e killed your playstyle, it was badwrongfun anyway, and now 4e won't have any of your type in it!"Dudes, their style might not be your style, but that doesn't make it an invalid style. 4e doesn't decide what the right way and wrong way to play D&D is, no matter how hard it may or may not try to do that. Playing Loner-type characters, or cautious characters, is a valid kind of play that 4e doesn't really support. It's a fair cop: 4e can't be used by people who want those kinds of characters and those kinds of games. The schadenfreude over someone who is having a problem with their games is entirely unhelpful. More helpful might be something like "I happen to like that it encourages group play, and if most groups are like mine, 4e is probably better for most groups, even if it doesn't work that well for yours. You might want to try X (Paranoia? CoC? Dread? 2e?) instead."Should 4e support all playstyles? Maybe it should have been more of a toolkit system. Maybe the focus is good because it helps D&D be more distinct as a game (I'm of this mind). Why might 4e have chosen to emphasize this style? What did they gain with it? What did they lose?These are interesting avenues of conversation."Your way of playing sucked anyway" really isn't.</blockquote>