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="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9223477" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Here's the thing- people who are trying to tell you often do speak with introspection. It's just that this introspection is inevitably rubbished. Or, when we try to have the historical conversation (as in this thread), it's impossible.To use an analogy, every single time someone explains to you why they didn't like 4e, you immediately come back with, "You're holding it wrong!" Except ... that's you. Not them. Let's try this. Someone walks into your restaurant. After the meal, they say that they love ice cream, and they want to order some. You say, "Okay, all we have is strawberry ice cream." The person replies, "I don't like strawberry ice cream." You insist that they order it and eat it. They tell you (unsurprisingly, after a few bites) that they don't like it ... because it's strawberry ice cream. Now, you can either argue until the end of forever that this is all their problem, or you can try and dig through their history and complain that it's their fault ("You once ate cherry ice cream, which means you like fruit in your ice cream, so you must like strawberry ice cream!"), or you can keep arguing that this is the best strawberry ice cream ever ... but it won't change the fact that you gave the person something that they didn't want. Just because you like something, doesn't mean other people do. Saying that other people have biases and interpretations and intransigence, without recognizing your own ... that's not great. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />In a later post, you acknowledge that you don't care at all about legacy (or as other might say ... continuity) and that's fine! But that's also ... you. Not other people. Design decisions that work for you won't work for other people. You can't keep insisting that other people have a duty (a personal responsibility?) to like 4e! People like what they like. You can try and tell them what you like about something, you can expose them to it, but in the end ... you can't make them like it. Ever.Do you want closure on 4e? Well, you can only find that in yourself. No one else can give that to you. People have told you why they didn't like 4e. But that won't give you closure, will it? Personally, I think it should be possible to have a discussion about the design process of 4e and the choices that were made that doesn't devolve into ... well, this ... in the same way that we can do with all the other editions of D&D. At this time, the design process of 4e took place from 2005-2007, which is closing in on two decades ago. We should be able to discuss it.At the end of the day, you have to understand that you can't view "fault" as a binary thing. The very strengths of 4e that you like are also the weaknesses. And that's okay! For example, you know that I'm a big proponent of rules-lite (1-3 page systems) games. But I also know that there are a lot of people that absolutely don't like them, and will go on screeds about how you need to have rules specifying things, etc. etc. etc. I am totally okay with the things I like about those systems being drawbacks for other people. Very little that is truly good is universally loved.</blockquote>

Verification