Actually, let me direct you to the following portion of one of your recent posts in this thread:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to talk mechanics, there are multiple ways in which 3E sucks (starting with the overcomplicated mess of the PHB combat chapter), but you don't see me crowing about it at every opportunity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, you really don't get it. Just because I find some things suck about 3E, doesn't mean I think the entire thing does.
I said "...there are multiple ways in which 3E sucks...". There are multiple ways in which other editions suck too.
Now, let's talk about consistency and credibility in your "argument." Actually, never mind. There's no need to.
That's the kind of thing a really arrogant creep would write. I think you've just proved your own credibility right there. You're right, there's no point in arguing with the likes of you.
You're right, not necessarily. However, thinking that one edition is good and one edition wasn't isn't an unreasonable assumption either. Just because I like one certainly doesn't mean I have to like all of them, as you appear to be implying.
I'll take your logic to task if you dismiss everything but 3E as crap and present it as fact.
Except that we're talking mostly about the mechanics. Or the fact that 1e was little more then mechanics and basic frameworks. So what if there are other methods of judging a game based on mechanics? Does that mean no one can say that the mechanics of 1e sucked, or that 1e sucked because the mechanics were so primitive? These aren't logical conclusions from any comment you're making.
Okay sunshine, I don't know what version of 1E you were playing, but it came with a hell of a lot more than just some rules mechanics like THAC0. I remember:
Monsters
Settings
Artwork
Adventures
Spells
NPCs
And what kind of debt do you think 3E has to all of that? It's incredibly derivative. This strongly implies that 1E wasn't all crap, and in fact had some very good content indeed. I don't like level limits, but at least I'm able to appreciate that the game had some good content, and not dismiss the lot as trash.
Close-minded would be like the initiators of some recent posts that claimed that 3rd edition sucked and 1e roolz without having seen 3e.
I play 3E. Try again.
Close-minded is jumping into a thread and insulting people because your fanboy worshipping mentality of a system that is so outdated that you might as well call it a horse and buggy compared to today's system is offended.
If you think 3E is RPG state of the art, I think you're very naive. My view of 3E is that it is a compromise between the old and the new, pretty much designed by committee. If you want to use transport metaphors to float your sinking argument, 3E is wagon wheels on a Porsche.
There are 3E fanboys everywhere. "I jumped into this thread" as you so amusingly suggest to play devil's advocate, and add a little critical thinking and discussion to blanket statements such as suggesting that all versions of D&D before 3E were "crappy".
Fanboys don't indulge in much critical thinking, which is what I'm trying to present whilst you sling mud, 3E fanboy.
Close-minded is a lot of things. Close-minded is not folks that have played role-playing games since nearly their inception in the seventies on tons of systems who can see that a system is so seriously flawed compared to what we've grown accustomed to that, yes, it sucks.
But all of it? Sounds pretty closeminded and simplistic to me.
Insulting folks who are making logically reasoned statements about their opinion of a roleplaying game that is different than your own golden opinion is the kind of black and white thinking associated with 3 year olds.
That's laughable coming from the guy who wrote this:
Now, let's talk about consistency and credibility in your "argument." Actually, never mind. There's no need to.
Back in your box.
