D&D 4e is pure win and I'll tell you why...

[StreamOfTheSky]

Maybe you're being defensive and insecure, are you unattractive?

Anyway, I've apologised, so why are you harping on about it?

Cause your apologies are insult-laden.

Dude, she posted a picture (and Xath has in the past); if either is unattractive, you've got bizarre standards.

Got a link for that?

As it stood, some guy in Georgia is ahead of me in the polls.

But not for long. Showers be damned.

WP

Diaglo???!

 

[sjmiller]

Back to the original intent of this thread....
I think it's great that No Name's SO has found an RPG she enjoys. There is no one game that fits everyone's taste. Some will love D&D 4e, some will loathe it. Some people (like myself) love GURPS, while others cannot stand it. There are games out there that suit just about anyone's taste. All you have to do is go out and find it.

While I have said a number of times that D&D 4e is not to my taste, that does not mean I entirely disapprove of it. If people enjoy the game, are having fun with the game, then who am I to say it is a bad thing? More power to them, I say!

 

[Rel]

Not at all, people obviously just can't stand hearing it like it is.

But, yeah, this thread has become creepy, so I shall touch it not; I'm leaving work now anyway, so everyone have a fabulous day or evening!

Ah yes, "Teh Troof!" I think you contributed plenty of it to this thread already so I'll just make sure that you have no problems not touching it further. No need to reply further to Steely Dan, folks. He can't see it anyway.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I was keying off the original post that compared it to 3.x in this aspect - again, just looking for guidance on the line.

Is there any "edition dissing" done? Is there an insult in saying: "I tried to interest my wife in RPGs with 3E, but I failed"? No.

Remember, it is still okay to talk about what you like or dislike. It's not okay to make insults about people who prefer one over the other, and claim certain play styles are "higher" or "dumb" or whatever.

It can't be that hard to figure out the line if you're really trying.

And then there's the rule of Sam (Ronin): When there's doubt, there is no doubt.

 

[Celebrim]

Because strangely enough, some of the things that people have been complaining about are actually working in my favor. To be more specific, I've seen complaints that D&D is more like a boardgame and D&D is like WoW.

Enter the significant other. I tried to get her interested in 3.5, but failed miserably. However, she does like board games, and she does like WoW. I'm sure you see where this is going. The point is, now I get to share a hobby I enjoy with someone I care about.

I for one never claimed that D&D being more like a boardgame or WoW was objectively bad or that a good many people wouldn't prefer that sort of game. I mean, WoW is extremely popular and boardgames are much more approachable than many RPGs are.

I was simply suggesting that 4e wasn't designed for me.

 

[knightofround]

I don't think Dan's statement is totally out-of-line. I think most gamers tend to fall on the less-attractive-than-average-side rather than the more-attractive-than-average-side. This goes for both men and women. I mean cmon you go into a gaming store and you see guys like comic book man in simpsons, not victoria secret models. I think everyone is taking his words waaaay to the extreme to imply that he's sexist. Of course there is exceptions. In my particular case, I've found female gamers to actually be closer or above their "average attractiveness" than male gamers. Just because someone has a minority opinion doesn't mean you have to assume the worst about them =P

Anyway, getting back to the original topic...what was it in particular about 4th edition that made it acceptable to your significant over 3rd edition? I'm curious if theres some gendered explanation, or if its simply that 4th edition has broader appeal to both men and women equally.

 

[drothgery]

Got a link for that?

I'm not a stalker, and so don't keep pics of people I don't know in real life around. Sorry. Check the GenCon archives.

 

[No Name]

Anyway, getting back to the original topic...what was it in particular about 4th edition that made it acceptable to your significant over 3rd edition? I'm curious if theres some gendered explanation, or if its simply that 4th edition has broader appeal to both men and women equally.

I think because 4e is more straight forward (ie. less complicated) in character creation and play. I do not intend that statement to be an insult to the SO's or anyone's intelligence. I'm talking about having to learn a lot of "stuff" in order to play a game which may or may not be fun. I'm guilty of that. Having to invest a lot of my time to learn something that I may not get much use out of or enjoy is irritating at best. I don't want to toe the line of edition wars either. There seems to be a trend across the editions, not "dumbing down" but refinement. I've noticed a similar trend in computer software over the past 15 years. It pleases me to see the stuff I like become more accessible to others who aren't as devoted to it as I am.

BTW, I don't think gender has as much to do with interests as people tend to believe. IMO, it has more to do with what gets reinforced. I could talk more about some really interesting psychological experiments, but I think I'll save that for another post.

She actually went with a dwarven ranger. Once I explained that dwarves like rocks, stone, mining picks, and hammers, and that she has a geology degree, the connection was made. I guess it's a good thing that hirsute dwarven women are a thing of the past.

 

[lutecius]

I don't think Dan's statement is totally out-of-line. I think most gamers tend to fall on the less-attractive-than-average-side rather than the more-attractive-than-average-side. This goes for both men and women. I mean cmon you go into a gaming store and you see guys like comic book man in simpsons, not victoria secret models. I think everyone is taking his words waaaay to the extreme to imply that he's sexist. Of course there is exceptions. In my particular case, I've found female gamers to actually be closer or above their "average attractiveness" than male gamers.

Precisely. In your experience, in mine* and apparently that of many others here, the average girl gamer is actually less ugly than the average male gamer.

Implying that most female dnd players are too repulsive to even play with while it’s ok to game with guys who are potentially just as gross, if not more, is not only wrong, it is sexist.

* In France, gamers are actually more on the skinny geek or the goth/metalhead side than ugly/fat/unwashed anyway.


As for the OP, I've never introduced anyone to 4e but most new players I’ve met didn't have a problem with earlier editions’ complexity (yeah, not even the girls). Of course, they weren’t dming and there was always someone to help them until they were more familiar with the rules.
Many did have a problem with "things that don’t make sense" though, like Str bonus to hit or fire-and-forget casting.

 

[Fifth Element]

Too late.