Are you tired of being told you hate 4E?

[Bladesong]

It is unfortunate that people resort to "name calling."
There will always be the "newer is better" group.
There will always be the "it still works why change it" group.
You will like what you do, and dislike what you don't. There really is no right or wrong.
Personally, I don't hate it ... I don't love it.
There are 3 people in my group using 3.0 books that I got for them (used) because they frankly could not afford them. I did not get them 3.5. They cannot afford 4.0 and I am not going to make them feel guilty yet again by getting the books for them (it took me a year for them to not feel bad about the used 3.0 books). One guy just likes new, one guy doesn't see the need and 2 more just don't care; I don't know what the last one thinks (yeah, I have 8 group members).
I have seen things I like about 4.0 and I have seen things that made me ask "why?" No doubt I will do what I always do... take any ideas I like and transplant it into our living game system which now resembles no game system out there. Why? Because no company is going to make anything that is 100% to your liking unless you are REAL easy to please.
In any case, there should not be any arguing. We are all just gamers...everyone needs to get along.

Happy Gaming, and have a great day!

Edited to clarify intent...

 

[Aus_Snow]

Not really. Desperate times call for desperate measures, I suppose, so who can blame them.

 

[jdrakeh]

There will always be the "newer is better" group.
There will always be the "it still works why change it" group.

Don't forget the "I refuse to buy new things on principle" group. They're out there.

 

[diaglo]

i don't hate 4ed. i'm just not interested.

 

[Umbran]

Well, as a moderator, I've been accused of hating 4e, and of being a pandering WotC fanboy. Once or twice that's happened in the same paragraph.

The reality is that I'm reserving judgment on the game until I can actually sit and read the rulebooks. I was the same back for 3e - the news we get is intriguing, but I find it insufficient for real decision making.

As for people telling me I like or hate it - clearly, they are incorrect. Beyond that, I don't let it bug me.

 

[Khur]

I've said it before, and on these boards, but it merits repeating. Taking a staunch position on anything that's not completely open to evaluation seems irrational to me. Few people have a clear picture of 4e, and a lot of talk, "hater" or "fanatic," is speculation—and a lot of that baseless. Even if our previews had, up to this point, made the game pretty clear, until the final game is complete and open to the public, it's hard for anyone to have a clear, rational view.

The only aspect that's worrisome is when someone (hater or fanatic) jumps from a baseless or misguided assumption to a worse conclusion, and then acts like that position is founded in anything besides emotion and rhetoric. Such a dialog isn't worth much attention, other than for entertainment and the simple pleasure of engaging another human being in conversation. That's only because such speculation simply isn't valuable for helping form a direction or getting a sense of how people really feel, while reasoned speculation, based on a clear picture, is.

That doesn't even begin to mean I think that anyone should shut up. Discussion can be fun because of many elements, two of which I've already mentioned, and wild speculation a third among them. I only find myself wishing that some people could see clearly what it is they're talking about. They might feel differently if they could. Until the game is out, that's impossible, so it's really nobody's fault.

That's why I feel the most rational position is, "That sounds [insert preferred adjective, such as "rouse," based on how you feel], but I'll wait and see what the game is like." And you haven't done enough to formulate a solid position until you've played the game. That's because it's written to be a game, not just entertaining reading material. Reading the rules is not enough.

That's also why the team from DDXP came back jazzed. Those who played the game seemed very positive about the experience. Sure, it wasn't all honey and roses, but it was overwhelmingly positive.

 

[Ze]

Actually, I don't see any problem in being called a 4E hater if that's what you are.
Me, I am.
But I respect other people's opinions as well. Call me a moderate hater...

 

[Dr Simon]

It (as in 4e) doesn't actually exist yet. Sounds like the designers are still tinkering with it. So it seems daft to express a strong opinion on it either way.

Most of the details of 4e so far that I have read about either make me think 'That worked fine before, why change it?' or 'Monte Cook beat you to it with Arcana Evolved'. A lot of other elements sound a bit too gamist for my tastes. On the other hand, the tidbit of Raise Dead recently released is a neat idea. Not sure you need an entirely new edition to implement it, though.

My main concern, as a hobbying publisher, is what is going to happen with the OGL, and whether useful sites like d20srd.org are going to fade away. Not playing 4e out of choice is one thing, but having 3.5 and the d20 OGL taken away is another. Still...wait and see...

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I've stopped reading most 4E topics because I can't really form an opinion of it until I have ALL of it in hand. I've got vague notions of how it will play but trying to actually analyze it from scraps of leaked information just doesn't turn my crank. Talk to me again in, say, July.

 

[mmu1]

I've said it before, and on these boards, but it merits repeating. Taking a staunch position on anything that's not completely open to evaluation seems irrational to me.

It's not irrational if the things you already do know about amount to a deal-breaker.

If someone brings me a plate of food and I notice there's a cockroach in it, I'm not going to try it on the off chance that it'll actually taste delicious, no matter how good the rest of it looks.