Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aberzanzorax" data-source="post: 5454598" data-attributes="member: 64209">There is a lot of wisdom in this post. I disagree with some points, just the same. I understand the irksomeness, but I also experience the same irksomeness when someone tells me that my feelings are somehow wrong. 4e just doesn't feel like D&D to me. For others to be bothered by my feeling seems weird. I think of it as a flavor issue, and I think of 4e as not having enough of the ingredients of prior editons for it to to taste similar enough to D&D for me. On the other hand, I sort of both agree and disagree on the "true D&D" comment you make. On the one hand, I think there are "essential elements" that are central to D&D that really, it cannot exist without (e.g. fantasy roleplaying....if I EVER see a version of D&D without fantasy roleplaying and someone defends it as "D&D" I'm going to laugh at the game and them...it's just plain central to the game)... ....but on the other hand, I'm going to say that all versions (yes, every single one, including my favorite, which still has problems) have problems. Of course they do. They're complex gaming rules/almost theoretical machines? I'm with you that Pathfinder is imperfect (despite attempting-sometimes succesfully, sometimes not- to fix issues/problems with 3e).    This is also well said. To say "4e isn't D&D" is weird and vociferous. But to say 4e feels too different from prior editions for me to engage with it...feels more natural and real. It's also a more sophisticated way to describe a phenomenon...something that not all people have within them. You are asking for a level of maturity that is higher than the average level of maturity for most American adults. People on these boards usually are slightly higher (just by virtue of an interest in a hobby that involves imagination and math)...but also due to investment and interest in the "philosophy of gaming" here on these boards. Here I'm just saying that people have varying levels of sophistication. I'm not saying any group or team or camp or whatever is more or less sophisticated than another. I am saying that most people don't have a very clear division between their emotions and their decisions and their logic and their ideal. That takes a lot of work...So much so that religions seeking Nirvana emphasize this work. Rare individuals may succeed in being perfectly clear in their words.  I'm aware of this myself, and I sure as hell know that I don't meet this standard. Other rare people may meet it. Many are like myself, in failing to meet this goal. But most are not aware that this distinction or goal even exists in the first place, and do not have a distinction of these properties as they live their lives, nor do they have goals to achieve what they are not yet aware of.  Regarding wishing people would be highly clear in what they want: Ask for the impossible, and you will be dissapointed. I think most people have an idea, but not a solid construction, of what they want (myself included). I realize I sound a bit elitist there...and quite possibly a bit of a jerk, though I do not intend to be. I really don't mean to place myself or others above or below one another. Not everyone understands the world in the same way. I don't want to elevate one way of understanding over another...but I do want to point out that there are differences. An art critic and a sports broadcaster have very specific tastes, refinements, and predilictions. The art critic will fail to understand the nuances of sports, as will the sportscaster fail to understand some of the nuances of the arts. So I am saying that not everyone can be truly expressive in a literary and perfectly logical and eloquent way. I don't think I can, and I think I'm better than some (but certainly not all, or even most). So people are going to flub their imperfect explanations (even myself, right now, where I'm trying really hard to be as clear as I can, I will fail partly....and not through any intentional obfuscation...I'm just going to fail because meanings are not solid...they're fuzzy). People might say "4e isn't D&D" and they'll be imperfect in such a statement. I'm with you, it's inflammatory and wrong. But to ask every person to speak on a message board to be more perfect, to politically and emotionally, as well as linguistically and poetically state their opinion? I can try to translate the imperfect, and perhaps unintentionally inflammatory, "4e isn't D&D". Here are some options:"4e doesn't feel right to me""4e doesn't feel like D&D to me""4e is missing this _one important game element_" that made D&D awesome, or just defined it, to me."4e is a poor/adequate/ok/good/great game, but it diverges too much from what I've played in the past""4e is missing this one thing from prior D&D. Without that one thing, it just isn't D&D. I won't play fantasy roleplaying without x.""4e just makes me sad. Too many changes too soon make my emotions erupt...into sadness. Other D&D doesn't make me feel this way. Something is wrong.""4e is really, really fun! I love it! I hated every version of D&D until this one came out! AWESOME, WotC!"  I can come up with one or two dozen more "perspectives" to describe/translate how someone might say "4e isn't D&D to me" if you like. But I hope it's clear to all how big changes in the game can cause big changes in impressions about the game.</blockquote>

Verification