Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6595942" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Uh huh.&nbsp; It isn't an edition warring screed.&nbsp; He is just &quot;talking about why he didn't really like 4e.&quot;That is just the first paragraph as I'm not sifting through the entirety of it.&nbsp; It is the same old stuff I've read and heard time and time again by angry people who didn't grok the ruleset, who didn't play much of it if any at all, but has been all pitchforks and torches since 2008 because they're battling for &quot;the heart and soul of D&amp;D&quot; against the 4e bogeyman who dared to besmirch the brand.&nbsp; Plenty of people are able to &quot;talk about why they didn't like 4e.&quot;&nbsp; 4e advocates are readily able and very capable of talking about what they didn't like about 4e or where they wish the designers or the editorial staff would have been more on point.&nbsp; But please, calling (utterly misinformed trotting out of boilerplate edition war slogans that are trivially disproved by running and playing the game correctly rather than some edition warrior's farce) unsolicited/off-topic edition warring screeds like that ho hum &quot;just talking about why they didn't like 4e&quot; doesn't 't help to distinguish legitimate criticism from not.&nbsp; Which was knock-on conversation about dissociative (now dissociated) mechanics, which was one of the first major shots from the bow in the edition wars, that we've all had before in the midst of the edition wars (specifically the power attack conversation, AD&amp;D saving throws, 3.x whatever knight, barbarian rage/day, etc etc)!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6595942, member: 6696971"] Uh huh. It isn't an edition warring screed. He is just "talking about why he didn't really like 4e." That is just the first paragraph as I'm not sifting through the entirety of it. It is the same old stuff I've read and heard time and time again by angry people who didn't grok the ruleset, who didn't play much of it if any at all, but has been all pitchforks and torches since 2008 because they're battling for "the heart and soul of D&D" against the 4e bogeyman who dared to besmirch the brand. Plenty of people are able to "talk about why they didn't like 4e." 4e advocates are readily able and very capable of talking about what they didn't like about 4e or where they wish the designers or the editorial staff would have been more on point. But please, calling (utterly misinformed trotting out of boilerplate edition war slogans that are trivially disproved by running and playing the game correctly rather than some edition warrior's farce) unsolicited/off-topic edition warring screeds like that ho hum "just talking about why they didn't like 4e" doesn't 't help to distinguish legitimate criticism from not. Which was knock-on conversation about dissociative (now dissociated) mechanics, which was one of the first major shots from the bow in the edition wars, that we've all had before in the midst of the edition wars (specifically the power attack conversation, AD&D saving throws, 3.x whatever knight, barbarian rage/day, etc etc)! [/QUOTE]

Verification