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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4284758" data-attributes="member: 2067">To dredge up a few things...Its not really a broad-brush assessment. Its two specific examples where the basic philosophy of the game diverges. It also contains no obvious quality statements: I am not saying any one method is inherently better than any other, merely pointing out that they are different methods, examples of differing philosophies, and that each of these paths makes certain choices about how to achieve their goals, and that these choices are going to alienate someone.The above seems extraordinarily obvious to me. So if its not, stop trying to claim that I am personally biased, and actually contradict the evidence. This will lead to a generally productive conversation. Me repeating the obvious doesn't seem like its really doing that.This is completely unrelated. I don't really care if you personally find it a problem or if you personally find something icky. This isn't, I'd hope, two people just screaming their preferences at each other. I'm trying to get at some of the real, cogent differences between the editions, and there is much more depth there than "3e sucked, 4e rocks!", or the inverse....no, it is largely a factor of what an RPG is -- a union of narrative content and mechanical systems, each of which informs the other. The idea that less rules = more narrative is deeply flawed, and, in any case, ignores the true relationship between the rules and narrative in an RPG. The plumage don't enter into it. The goals are largely independent about how you personally feel about the ickiness of half-orcs. The question is about the functions of half-orcs. Not only that, but quality is INSANELY more subjective (and thus more useless for productive conversation here) than the stated or obvious goals of the game.No?Like I've said upthread, I like my Wii. I like 4e. This isn't about slamming anything, from my side. "Casual" isn't a bad thing. Its a description that seems accurate, not any sort of loaded term.Once again, I don't care what you think is a bad system. Quality isn't at all a useful distinction between 3e and 4e because it is such a subjective, loaded distinction. Rather, there are things that are descriptive that it seems can be largely agreed on regardless of your quality assessment. One is that 4e is more of an out-of-the-box game than 3e, which suffered from a need to tinker. The choices that went into that weren't made because the designers were dumb chimps who didn't know what they were doing. The choices were made in pursuit of the goal, and one place where 3e and 4e diverge (ever so slightly, but still significantly) is on the goal of "encouraging people to make their own game." 3e forced it to a certain degree, 4e just lets it happen on the sidelines.You've passed the limits of basic constructive conversation at this point, and I really don't feel the need to respond to bizarre comparisons of 3e fans to people who encourage eating disorders.Talk to me when you're done pointlessly villifying people.</blockquote>

Verification