D&D 3.x A message to the 3.5ers

[TerraDave]

Why are the same old negative posts any less interesting then the same old positive posts?

At least the negative-repetative posts have chance of being entertaining, albiet a small one.

 

[Psion]

Eh. I'm more offended by 3.5ers trying to claim Grognard as their new appellation. Go get yer own nickname, and leave Grognard to us early editioners.

Grognards are ever expanding, by definition.

But enough about people's weight...

 

[Scribble]

I don't mind them saying their piece when they have something to say.

I do wish we could see the end of the posts that do nothing except proclaim personal intransigence. If you feel like WOTC "fired you as a customer" because they changed the default pantheon, or advanced the timeline in a campaign setting, then perhaps you're stretching to find reasons to complain.

Enworld has always been a place that people know the various designers and companies watch. Not everyone out there has the ability, or desire, to articulate their feelings in a well thought out post. Sometimes people just want to let the world know they feel something "sucks."

Emotions are wonky like that. As long as their not personally attacking anyone I say let them vent. It's easy enough to ignore those posts, and feedback (good or bad) is always useful. Sure it would be betetr if the feedback told you "why" something sucked... but at least they know it sucks.

And I wouldn't mind seeing the end of posts with fragmented logic. "Change X will break the game!!!" is a particularly unhelpful opinion without knowing the framework into which Change X is being placed, for example. Or posts which assume an almost malicious stupidity on behalf of WOTC, without any evidence. Chances are, if you looked at a WOTC staff blog post and immediately noticed that a new rule interacts poorly with an old rule, they noticed that too. Go ahead and post that fact, but don't insist that the game's doomed now until you know whether the old rule still exists. Otherwise you look like a twerp.

"Change X is bad if Rule Y from 3.5 still exists." = acceptable.
"Change X will DESTROY THE GAME because of Rule Y from 3.5!!!!!" = moronic.

I think WOTC is partly to blame for those posts... They release a snippet of rules, and give no indication that they HAVE considered the impact if rule Y is not accounted for. They simply say "Isn't that COOOOOLLL??????"

I'm willing to give the designers credit and say they have thought them through. But until they give some indication that they have I can understand why people feel simply saying a rule is cool, or really cool, isn't going to cut it. It's always possible that they simply missed something as well.

 

[ThirdWizard]

...or add people to my ignore list.

My ignore list is getting pretty large. I've added people who I would never have considered adding, sadly. But, it has made reading the 4e forums far less of a slog through underbrush. I'm probably missing out on some good stuff on other forums, but if every single thing somebody says is a complaint, without even mentioning why half the time, then its just a waste of time to read through those posts.

Debates are fun. I love reading them and responding. That's cool.

Constant ranting is totally different.

 

[Wolfspider]

It's a portrait of me. Would you believe me if I told you it's got a HUGE smile because I'm a really friendly and happy guy?

/M

I guess I could learn to accept that.

 

[Piratecat]

Debates are fun. I love reading them and responding. That's cool.

Constant ranting is totally different.

Agreed.

 

[Wolfspider]

Agreed.

Indeed.

 

[shadewest]

Indeed.

Proceed.

Please bear with me a moment while I voice some opinions.

"Bo9S is too anime!"
"Tielings and Warlocks are too evil to be core!"
"Give. Me. Back. My. Gnomes!"
"Warforged are robots!"(are not!).
"Dragon's Tail Cut is a cheesy name."

I know I've missed a few. I've been through all of these, actually believed most of them for a time, may have expressed a few unsupported emotions. I've been a gamer long enough to be a grognard, but have kept up just the same. I'm still here for one reason. I still have hope that 4E will be the best edition yet. 3E fixed the retrograde AC/THAC0 fiasco. This edition promises to resolve the Empty Clip Mage problem. That will make me happy.

Ultimately, I'll be playing that game that's being played. So will most of the other 3.5ers.

 

[Cadfan]

I think WOTC is partly to blame for those posts... They release a snippet of rules, and give no indication that they HAVE considered the impact if rule Y is not accounted for. They simply say "Isn't that COOOOOLLL??????"

I don't think this is a problem.

Look, online manners tend to involve what can loosely be termed a presumption of good faith, but also includes a certain degree of a presumption of intelligence as well.

Look at how that plays out in normal conversation. If someone tells me that they've basically eliminated character death in their game, I have two ways I can respond. I could say, "Oh, really? How do you motivate your players, and what do you do for drama?" and then we could have a discussion. Or I could say, "WHAT?? I'm glad I don't play in YOUR pathetic excuse for a game! That's like the worst of rpgs and video games combined! You just sit there and knock down enemies that can't even threaten you? What a bunch of wusses."

Do you see the problem with the second post? It presumes an awful lot, all of the presumptions are uncharitable, its insulting, and it leads nowhere.

I try not to do this to other people. But remember, the charitable presumptions of good faith and intelligence are just presumptions. Once someone writes a post like that, I know that they're either not speaking in good faith, or they're idiots. Either way, I could do with less of them on the forum.

Sadly, a lot of people who probably wouldn't consider acting this way towards other forum members happily do so towards WOTC. Posts like, "Fireball has a critical chance now? THE GAME IS BROKEN!" are worthless. Posts like, "Fireball has a critical chance? That could cause some problems. I wonder if they've done anything about them? Here are some ideas I've got," are awesome.

We need more of the latter, and less of the former. And as the former have squandered my presumption of good faith and intelligence, I am free to hope they get eaten by a gru.

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

Could we agree to a moratorium on 3.5 grognardry in the 4th Editon forum?

At this point, WotC has sunk too much money into 4th to back out, so you're not going to be able to convince them to abandon 4e or even change it to be more like 3.5 used to be. (There are publishers you might be able to convince, but you'd be better off telling them directly via their forums and emails.)

Moreover, it seems like every single thread has a couple grognards grumbling about 4th edition and saying why they're sticking with 3.5, which is getting very old.

I'm not saying you have to be a "Wormwood", here -- you don't have to think most 4e changes are the Bestest Thing Evar to participate -- but there's a huge difference between not liking some element of 4e (for instance, I don't like a lot of the names and the fact that 50% of the PHB races are elven) and grumbling about the entire edifice altogether.

So, from all of us who are looking forward to 4e on some level, whether it's with mild enthusiasm or full-blown 4e sycophancy -- if you plan on sticking with 3.5 and have made that decision, please stop posting in the 4e forum.

Why? Who are you that I should care what you want? Some of these people you are complaining about have been here since is was Eric Noah's rumour page. I generally stay out of the 4e forum as I've decided not to play 4th so I've missed most of what you are complaining about but I'll go ahead and give my opinion.

I'm sure d20 fantasy 2nd edition is going to be a fun game. But it won't be D&D to me just because it has the official logo on it. I've read enough to know that it's not the game for me. Wizards with at will abilities is not D&D. Tieflings as a core race is not D&D to me. Wizards of the Coast has fired me as a customer.