Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8414346" data-attributes="member: 5142">Your experiences count when your are talking about your own experiences with the game. They don't when you are trying to assert those experiences as a universal truth about the game in a way that invalidates the experiences of others with the game. If you claim that the fluff doesn't matter in 4e based on your experiences, and I tell you that my own experiences with the game fluff in 4e runs contrary to yours, then what message are you sending about my experiences versus yours? It says that only your experience matters and that mine doesn't.I don't deny that it's a feature in 5e, but whether fluff is mixed in with mechanics or separate doesn't somehow magically negate the existence of the fluff.The basis and mode of your argumentation predominately amounted to making falsifiable assertions based on anecdotal evidence and saying "no it didn't" when people disagreed with your assertions. I can respect that you didn't find 4e to your liking, but not how you have argued that in this thread or the assertions you have made about the game. This definitely seems like special pleading when comparing 4e to 5e. I don't know. There were a fair number of fantastic 4e innovations (e.g., attack rolls vs. Fort/Ref/Will defenses, healing surges, encounter building, monster design, power sources) that WotC threw out with the bath water in 4e without so much as thinking about whether or not it was actually problematic. It's difficult for me to be excited about how lazily and half-heartedly WotC adopted some things for 5e from 4e while seeing either what was abandoned or how much better they were executed in 4e.</blockquote>

Verification