Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ShinHakkaider" data-source="post: 5453996" data-attributes="member: 9213">If it's so silly and pointless, then STOP DISCUSSING IT. It doesn't confuse things at all. It would only be confusing to someone who honestly isn't trying to understand what the other person is saying and just wants that other person to STOP EXPRESSING THAT PARTICULAR OPINION. Seriously, it would be nice if you feel that you didn't have to mount a spirited defense of 4E whenever YOU felt it was being attacked. Saying that &quot;it doesn't feel like D&amp;D to me&quot; isn't an attack, it's an opinion. There is no logical, rational argument that you can make that would reinforce that that feeling is &quot;Silly&quot; or &quot;pointless&quot;. No one here is saying that it's a bad game or that it sucks (at least I'm not) but you're determined to turn this into some sort of conflict by insulting the people who dont feel the same way as you do. And that's exactly what you've done in your posts (in a passive agressive way no doubt...). Let me make this clear. I dont hate 4E. I've played it and run i for a short while and to me it doesnt feel like D&amp;D. Considering that I've played every iteration of D&amp;D from Red Box Basic TO 4E and they ALL of differences from one another, saying that my framework for D&amp;D is narrow is well...short sighted and a bit self serving. Big differences between Red Box Basic and Advanced D&amp;D, Not huge changes between AD&amp;D and 2nd ED at the beginning (then Kits and what not). Some big changes between 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed. Minor changes between 3x and 3.5. Big changes between 3.5 and 4E. I've played all of these types of D&amp;D. They all have different flavors but in the end they all felt like I was playing basically the same game. Except for 4E. Narrow I think not.Also? I dont know about the rest of you but I only use analogies when I'm trying to explain a concept to a layman who may not have a context for what I'm talking about. None of us here are laymen so we can actually talk about what were talking about. there's no need to try and seem to be smarter than we actually are. We know the truth. We're actually just smart enough to hold a conversation with one another. No more and no less. So please no more analogies?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ShinHakkaider, post: 5453996, member: 9213"] If it's so silly and pointless, then STOP DISCUSSING IT. It doesn't confuse things at all. It would only be confusing to someone who honestly isn't trying to understand what the other person is saying and just wants that other person to STOP EXPRESSING THAT PARTICULAR OPINION. Seriously, it would be nice if you feel that you didn't have to mount a spirited defense of 4E whenever YOU felt it was being attacked. Saying that "it doesn't feel like D&D to me" isn't an attack, it's an opinion. There is no logical, rational argument that you can make that would reinforce that that feeling is "Silly" or "pointless". No one here is saying that it's a bad game or that it sucks (at least I'm not) but you're determined to turn this into some sort of conflict by insulting the people who dont feel the same way as you do. And that's exactly what you've done in your posts (in a passive agressive way no doubt...). Let me make this clear. I dont hate 4E. I've played it and run i for a short while and to me it doesnt feel like D&D. Considering that I've played every iteration of D&D from Red Box Basic TO 4E and they ALL of differences from one another, saying that my framework for D&D is narrow is well...short sighted and a bit self serving. Big differences between Red Box Basic and Advanced D&D, Not huge changes between AD&D and 2nd ED at the beginning (then Kits and what not). Some big changes between 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed. Minor changes between 3x and 3.5. Big changes between 3.5 and 4E. I've played all of these types of D&D. They all have different flavors but in the end they all felt like I was playing basically the same game. Except for 4E. Narrow I think not. Also? I dont know about the rest of you but I only use analogies when I'm trying to explain a concept to a layman who may not have a context for what I'm talking about. None of us here are laymen so we can actually talk about what were talking about. there's no need to try and seem to be smarter than we actually are. We know the truth. We're actually just smart enough to hold a conversation with one another. No more and no less. So please no more analogies? [/QUOTE]

Verification