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: 9226477" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Completely agree. After all, most of us are here for interminable debates over the tiniest things. It comes with the territory; whether it's disintegrate v. wildshape, or what's going on with orcs, or alignment, or hit points, or edge cases involving stealth, if you ask three people, you'll get four opinions.That said, it is a continuing and unfortunate feature of discussions about 4e in particular that we can't actually have a discussion about the historical issues w/r/t the design of 4e. Personally, I find the history of RPGs (and design) to be fascinating, as you know from reading my incredibly lengthy posts on various topics. Digging into issues like, for example, whether Zeb Cook's design of the Kensai in OA influenced his later ideas about the Ranger? Or (as I just did) the original schism between Arneson and Gygax played into the origins of the hit point debate?Awesome! But when it comes to 4e, even in a thread about that exact topic, we end up in the same pattern ... because we always have the same individuals that need to re-litigate 4e every time. Which is a shame.Take this thread. Off the top of my head, in addition to the brief (and derailed) discussions that the OP brought forward, I just learned two other interesting things. The first was from you, discussing the RPGA aspects that may have played into the design. The second was from [USER=6780330]@Parmandur[/USER] sharing what Mearls had to say about the insular nature of the design team (something I had surmised, but I didn't realize he had addressed).If people want 4e to be treated like every other edition, then we should be able to discuss the history and design process, as well as the facts and other information about it, just like every other edition. As an aside, I kind of wish Petersen was doing the book- he tends to be more fact-based. While I think that Riggs does excellent work in terms of uncovering facts, he will often "take sides" in his prose to create more compelling narratives.</blockquote>

Verification