Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ProfessorCirno" data-source="post: 4203135" data-attributes="member: 65637">First of all, let's stay away from the ad hominem, yes?&nbsp; It doesn't help your argument to attempt and take the intellectual high ground simply because I disagree with what you're saying.&nbsp; What it does do is disrupt things and overall make it unpleasant to debate.Secondly, I disagree.&nbsp; Again, closing your eyes and pretending the fighter is REALLY a barbarian doesn't make it a barbarian.&nbsp; That's not roleplaying.&nbsp; Roleplaying is is making a barbarian then playing it as a barbarian.&nbsp; Now, can you make a fighter and pretend he's a barbarian?&nbsp; Sure!&nbsp; I actually HAD a player do that.&nbsp; It was hilarious.&nbsp; He was a prim and proper civilized man who earnestly believed barbarians had it right, and tried to emulate them.&nbsp; He never once took a level in barbarian, because he wasn't one.&nbsp; He couldn't rage.&nbsp; But that character proves me point - he was never a barbarian.&nbsp; He THOUGHT he was one, but the other barbarians would gather around their tents and laugh at him behind his back.&nbsp; Your entire argument is based on this belief that &quot;ignoring in game mechanics = creativity.&quot;&nbsp; It's not.&nbsp; The game exists to supply those mechanics.&nbsp; The roleplaying exists to supplement those mechanics, not replace them.&nbsp; You can't say &quot;It's not the game's fault it doesn't supply the mechanics,&quot; because that's quite literally the purpose of the game.&nbsp; As I said earlier, that doesn't inherintly mean the game is a bad one, or that it's horribly flawed - I don't play D&amp;D if I want a Call of Cthulhu game, because D&amp;D wasn't designed for that niche.&nbsp; But to argue that a game works just fine so long as you ignore its shortcomings is problematic.&nbsp; If you separate the game from the mechanics, I ask you, what's left of the game?&nbsp; And it's true that, if you ignore the shortcomings of something, it's absolutely perfect; but you could say that for *anything*.Oh, and for the upteenth time, I'm not some horrible miserly old geezer who hates 4e and wants to see everyone turn away from it.&nbsp; I'm on the fence for it, mechanics wise.&nbsp; But this idea of &quot;If you don't like it, you hate it and are trying to make others hate it&quot; is getting very tiresome.&nbsp; One of the biggest detractors from the system is this idea where &quot;you must agree with it on everything, or else!&quot;&nbsp; Here's the thing; everything in the world needs criticism.&nbsp; That's how you know what to improve.&nbsp; 4e wouldn't exist if people didn't criticize 3.x.&nbsp; I truly fear for a world where it's a moral crime to try and improve things.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ProfessorCirno, post: 4203135, member: 65637"] First of all, let's stay away from the ad hominem, yes? It doesn't help your argument to attempt and take the intellectual high ground simply because I disagree with what you're saying. What it does do is disrupt things and overall make it unpleasant to debate. Secondly, I disagree. Again, closing your eyes and pretending the fighter is REALLY a barbarian [i]doesn't make it a barbarian[/i]. That's not roleplaying. Roleplaying is is making a barbarian then playing it as a barbarian. Now, can you make a fighter and pretend he's a barbarian? Sure! I actually HAD a player do that. It was hilarious. He was a prim and proper civilized man who earnestly believed barbarians had it right, and tried to emulate them. He never once took a level in barbarian, because he wasn't one. He couldn't rage. But that character proves me point - he was never a barbarian. He THOUGHT he was one, but the other barbarians would gather around their tents and laugh at him behind his back. Your entire argument is based on this belief that "ignoring in game mechanics = creativity." It's not. The game exists to supply those mechanics. The roleplaying exists to [i]supplement[/i] those mechanics, not replace them. You can't say "It's not the game's fault it doesn't supply the mechanics," because that's quite literally the purpose of the game. As I said earlier, that doesn't inherintly mean the game is a bad one, or that it's horribly flawed - I don't play D&D if I want a Call of Cthulhu game, because D&D wasn't designed for that niche. But to argue that a game works just fine so long as you [i]ignore its shortcomings[/i] is problematic. If you separate the game from the mechanics, I ask you, what's left of the game? And it's true that, if you ignore the shortcomings of something, it's absolutely perfect; but you could say that for *anything*. Oh, and for the upteenth time, I'm not some horrible miserly old geezer who hates 4e and wants to see everyone turn away from it. I'm on the fence for it, mechanics wise. But this idea of "If you don't like it, you hate it and are trying to make others hate it" is getting [b]very tiresome[/b]. One of the biggest detractors from the system is this idea where "you [b]must[/b] agree with it on everything, [b]or else[/b]!" Here's the thing; everything in the world needs criticism. That's how you know what to improve. 4e wouldn't exist if people didn't criticize 3.x. I truly fear for a world where it's a moral crime to try and improve things. [/QUOTE]

Verification