Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9093033" data-attributes="member: 7023840">So, here's the thing. Charitable. Sure! I have no issue being charitable. Usually, in a conversation, charity is a two-way street.Now, as you know, I write a lot about the history of D&D, and a fair amount of rules, prior editions, and the like. But ... I almost never, ever discuss 4e. Why? Because ... of this!I just had a number of posts discussing 4e and talking about how it was a good design. But ... that's not enough, is it? It never is.See, here's the thing when you enter a 4e discussion. You have to remember the following rules:1. 5e is just like 4e, because 4e was awesome, and since 5e did well, all the awesome was reflected in 4e. Or something.EXCEPT2. 5e is nothing like 4e, because the 5e designers lied and told people that it would reflect all the past editions, but they hated 4e. Or something.1. The 4e DMG(s) were amazing, because people read them and they did a great job both explaining how to run the game and proscribing processes of play. Heck, just look at page 42! If you don't quote page 42, you didn't really play 4e, right?EXCEPT2. The 4e DMG(s) are just a guide that is really nothing but flavor text, so if you bother reading it and understanding it, it has no relevance on the play, at all.I get it. It's contentious. But I don't think I have been the one lacking a charitable construction, here. To the extent that people want to ensure that 4e is barely discussed, well, they do a good job! So, there's that?</blockquote>

Verification