NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ondath" data-source="post: 9190568" data-attributes="member: 7031770">Consider this: Maybe we don't get to decide what is insulting for a person? Something that feels completely normal to you may be insulting to them, and if that's the case, I think it's both unhelpful and incredibly bad manners to go "This isn't insulting, stop feeling insulted!"I didn't really play D&D back when 4E was released, but I did start playing with 3.5 and got around to checking 4E only a few years ago. Are some of the design choices well ahead of their time? Actually, yes. Did people perhaps malign it too much for daring to slay the sacred cows? In hindsight, probably, people tend to be biased about keeping things that they like even if something better could replace it. But I feel like some 4e fans (both on this site and in places like Reddit) have a revisionist view of history where 4e and its marketing did nothing wrong and that people are actually, morally at fault for not liking 4e. What is true is that the game's earlier marketing misunderstood its main demographic, and that main demographic did really feel insulted (whether you think the marketing is insulting or not is irrelevant at this point).I read both of the Wizards Presents books and I have to admit, I like a lot of the ideas they presented there. But the book did feel like it was insulting me for liking "forced symmetry", 3.5-style hardcore worldbuilding, simulationist rules etc. and the whole throughline was essentially "All these years your D&D games were impure in lore and mechanics, but the almighty Scramjet has now descended from heavens to fix your incorrect game!". And I didn't like that. And I'm saying this as someone whose current homebrew setting is closer to 4e's World Axis than the Great Wheel in terms of cosmology.</blockquote>

Verification