Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ppaladin123" data-source="post: 4099449" data-attributes="member: 60923"><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; True but...a lot of the time &quot;Goofus&quot; says something like &quot;4e is going to be boring because players will spam at will powers! 3rd edition was better because...&quot; It's even happened several times in this post. If someone criticizes 4e by claiming 3e does something better, that opens the argument up to the sins (in question) of the previous edition. The pro-4e camp gets annoyed by criticisms of 4e that simultaneously praise 3e when either a. there is no actual difference (as far as we know) between the rules in that instance or b*. the poster is imagining some alternate version of 3e that is missing the problem that supposedly appeared in 4e. This is unfair in the same way that the complete opposite &quot;well, uh, 3e sucks too!&quot; is.&nbsp; * Note: I think &quot;b&quot; can occasionally lead into a fair discussion on house-rules. One can argue about whether 4e appears easier to house-rule than 3e. If 3e's supposed problems can be easily dealt with, that strikes a blow to those who think 4e is a necessary fix. By the way, I think it is valid however to criticize 4e for keeping some of the problematic aspects of the previous edition. Some users won't switch to 4e edition because it did not fix what they saw as wrong with 3e edition. These folks have been turned off to d&amp;d for a while now. They are another camp altogether.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ppaladin123, post: 4099449, member: 60923"] :) True but...a lot of the time "Goofus" says something like "4e is going to be boring because players will spam at will powers! 3rd edition was better because..." It's even happened several times in this post. If someone criticizes 4e by claiming 3e does something better, that opens the argument up to the sins (in question) of the previous edition. The pro-4e camp gets annoyed by criticisms of 4e that simultaneously praise 3e when either a. there is no actual difference (as far as we know) between the rules in that instance or b*. the poster is imagining some alternate version of 3e that is missing the problem that supposedly appeared in 4e. This is unfair in the same way that the complete opposite "well, uh, 3e sucks too!" is. * [I] Note: I think "b" can occasionally lead into a fair discussion on house-rules. One can argue about whether 4e appears easier to house-rule than 3e. If 3e's supposed problems can be easily dealt with, that strikes a blow to those who think 4e is a necessary fix. [/I] By the way, I think it is valid however to criticize 4e for [I]keeping[/I] some of the problematic aspects of the previous edition. Some users won't switch to 4e edition because it did not fix what they saw as wrong with 3e edition. These folks have been turned off to d&d for a while now. They are another camp altogether. [/QUOTE]

Verification