Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Erechel" data-source="post: 6596230" data-attributes="member: 6784868">Uhm, I think that I'm a bit confused. I do see a vitriolic response in the original Tequila Sunrise post, that I had already quoted. About my language, Manbearcat, it was basically a reaction to what I percieved as a pedantic prick saying "If you don't like 4th edition, you are a dinosaur. I'm so chick, I appreciate change...", hence my language. Sure, I don't like the 4th edition. I still find many interesting ideas in it, ideas that were recreated in 5th edition (the new edition).Pemerton, please, don't take your own thoughts as proven facts. Your self-called rant about Justin Alexander doesn't prove your points, and many other people in a more "neutral" ground (as Bedrock, for example) replied your points. And, in fact, I find you a lot more vitriolic than I am. You seem like you don't tolerate any criticism to your game, and reply with "This is <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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" />. It doesn't deserve a reply" which IS a reply, but only one with no argument. I do recognize that my language was flamy in my first post, and I explain my reasons, but I do think that my ideas has some sustain. So do you of your own, but even you did not read every post I made. I commited a mistake taking "inches" for "squares" in OD&D. Also I do recognize that I don't already play it, but the argument remains the same. Squares and inches aren't the distances that the characters think about, hence the dissociative mechanics I see. Of course, you can easily refluff it, and say something like: one square=3 feet, or 1 meter, or whatever you like in-game, and it won't be such a pain in the ass to do so, but take this as a sign of the heavy metagaming factor. One of the things I did not like in any edition, not only 4th (as I said prior, is not the innovations what I did not like). One of the others is the power scalade, also present (if not more so) in other editions, specially in 3.5. And moreso, you may not have read it (as you see the flaming language, from which I apologize; and a thing I recognize as a problem later on) in several of my posts, I say it one more time: What do I see as problems of 4th edition, are not only in this game, but in D&D as a whole, only that, in 4th, some of them were aggravated (as I say, metagaming factor, which is not only aknowledged but embraced in this particular edition).You may think that I'm an old dinosaur, a flamer troll that does nothing but rant about 4th edition, because "it betrayed the soul of D&D". I'm not. I actually acknowledge some of the points of 4th edition (better maths, rituals, some of the balance, although I don't think at all that it was flawless, combat non magic maneuvers), but I do think that overall, the "soul of D&D flaws" are there but aggravated, like Vancian system in a more limited timeframe (call it Powers System, and you don't have to "memorize" the spells -a roleplaying mechanic, ultimately-, but you do have a "limited resource" factor -the metagaming factor of it- with no other explanation that balancing classes) and applied to every class. Many of the flaws are still in 5th edition, only, as I said earlier, polished. Others are not. I'm very suspicious of people that defend anything in the name of "innovation" without thinking about the value of it, or if it's really innovation. Like I said earlier, some of the posts may be read as "I'm the hype hear; all the others are naked savages screaming about some trees or forests. Or retro hippies, that are the same thing".</blockquote>

Verification