Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3891538" data-attributes="member: 18280">No argument there.  However, I am somewhat at a loss as to how else you answer "STOP SPEWING POISON" when you don't believe that a request for specific information is in any way, shape, or form even similar to "spewing poison".I am neither railing at them nor "raising bad opinion".  I fully expect that there will be a response.  I may be wrong, but at the moment I am more than willing to give WotC the benefit of the doubt.But let us say, for the sake of argument, that I was on the current thread about the DI Dungeon & Dragon.  A lot of folks there are voicing disappointment.  Is that railing, raising bad opinion, or spewing poison?  I don't think so.  I think it is perfectly reasonable to raise objection when you feel that there is something to object to.For example, you just raised an objection to my post.  Was that railing, raising bad opinion, or spewing poison?  No.  Obviously not.  In fact, even if it reading your post made everyone on EN World hate me, it wouldn't be your fault.  If everyone hates "Sense of Wonder" threads, and I post "Sense of Wonder" threads, then pointing out that I am posting threads everyone hates isn't "spewing poison".  Maybe, just maybe, it will recall me to the consequences of my actions.  If I do X, and pointing out that I do X makes people have a bad opinion of me, it is my fault, not the fault of the one pointing my behaviour out.  In fact, in this case, pointing my behaviour out may very well be a community service.Easy example (and not a real example!):  If I claim that I'll pay $100 to everyone who sends me their 3.0 PHB, and you send me your 3.0 PHB, and I don't pay you, your pointing out my bad behaviour is an asset to the community that may very well prevent others from sending me their 3.0 PHBs.There is a simularity in this issue to Burden of Proof as well.  If I want to convince you of something, I need to offer evidence that meets your threshold for burden of proof.  It doesn't really matter what I feel, or what my own theshold is.  Convincing you requires that I adapt to your threshold.You could say "The existence of the Loch Ness Monster is proven" and I say "No, it is not" and neither one of us be wrong or lying.  Your theshold for proof might be lower than mine.  Similarly, if a game designer says "We're bending over backwards here" and I say "No, you're not" it is quite possible for us both to be correct given the contexts of our positions, but from any single context we cannot both be correct.But not every context is equally important.If I want to convince you that UFOs are alien spacecraft, then what you would accept as proof is what's important -- not what I would.  If I want to convince WotC that they should use my Weapon Skills system for 4e, then what WotC would take to be convinced is what is important -- what I feel is not.  If WotC wants me to believe that they are bending over backwards, then what I feel is important.....Likewise, if they want me to spend my money on their game, then what I feel is important.I believe that WotC understands this.  I believe (and I hope) that WotC will look at this "challenge" as an opportunity.  Because if I am honest with myself, I want them to convince me that 4e is worth buying.  I want them to convince me that 4e is worth the effort of re-house ruling for.  I want them to convince me that 4e is great.And since they're not doing that, I'm willing to lay down a trail of bread crumbs to lead them (if I am lucky) in what I think is the right direction.RC</blockquote>

Verification