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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kannik" data-source="post: 9216580" data-attributes="member: 984">I think it good to remind ourselves of some context at play here to avoid some talking-past-each-other. It’s not that most 4e aficionados can’t accept that a subset of D&D players didn’t/don’t like or enjoy 4e (or that no other version/way of playing ought to exist – that most 4e players are playing 5e these days is illustrative of this). It that a subset of that subset were most vitriolic about it, complete with insults, mocking, and denigration towards those who played 4e. (To a whole new degree – when 3e was released there were those who disliked it immensely but it felt much less like they were attacking their fellow players.)Atop this was, as was noted upthread, that a chunk of that subset also approached 4e with knives out before seeing it or giving it a try/fair shake, due to a whole host of non-game reasons (edition churn, licensing issues, taking the marketing poorly, change/sacred cows, the batman effect, etc). And many of those adopted (perhaps for expediency) the same attack points as the vitriolic crowd, even if and when some of those points were inaccurate or hyperbolic.Problem was, and still remains, it can be hard to know where a fellow poster is coming from when you engage. Or if they even are engageable. Earlier this year (or perhaps late last year) even Morrus had to admonish someone that they were a “sore winner” as they continued to tout how wrong 4e was and how right they were, a decade plus after 4e ceased to be published. And this opaqueness can lead to some confusion and back and forth misunderstandings, as well as unexpected (if you don’t remember the context) heat.</blockquote>

Verification