Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4670173" data-attributes="member: 63272">What is humorous is that this is how you presented your initial position in this thread.&nbsp; I tried arguing the points rationally with you, but you are unwilling to move past your circular position of:4e sucks at noncombatBut what about all the noncombat things?Clearly they suck, didn't I already say that 4e sucks at these things?Anytime someone responded asking for either clarification of how previous editions were superior or how the current edition's tools &quot;suck&quot;, you said you weren't arguing specifics, then continued your unsupported position as if everyone was in agreement with you.It's funny that when I responded in kind with &quot;nu-uh 4e is better!&quot; that you responded as if you now find that being &quot;unable or unwilling to accept that experiences differ&quot; is a bad way to be.Many players of 4e simply disagree with you that the options presented in 4e are inadequate, not thought out well, and don't handle noncombat situations well.&nbsp; They do in our games.&nbsp; In my games, skill challenges work great.&nbsp; They have depth and drama and are far, far superior to single skill checks.&nbsp; The spotlight shining solely on skill monkeys outside of combat is over, and my players enjoy that they are equally engaged and valuable in or out of combat.&nbsp; For those reasons and others I find 4e handles noncombat situations far better than previous editions.&nbsp; It combines the freedom of roleplay and DM design of the early editions with mechanical support (imo, correctly) so it is about the character's and not the player's skill. I've already made that argument throughout here, but you chose instead to ignore that, &quot;not argue specifics&quot;, and continue to rant on about how it sucks &quot;just cause&quot; without offering any reasoned debate or detail.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thasmodious, post: 4670173, member: 63272"] What is humorous is that this is how you presented your initial position in this thread. I tried arguing the points rationally with you, but you are unwilling to move past your circular position of: 4e sucks at noncombat But what about all the noncombat things? Clearly they suck, didn't I already say that 4e sucks at these things? Anytime someone responded asking for either clarification of how previous editions were superior or how the current edition's tools "suck", you said you weren't arguing specifics, then continued your unsupported position as if everyone was in agreement with you. It's funny that when I responded in kind with "nu-uh 4e is better!" that you responded as if you now find that being "unable or unwilling to accept that experiences differ" is a bad way to be. Many players of 4e simply disagree with you that the options presented in 4e are inadequate, not thought out well, and don't handle noncombat situations well. They do in our games. In my games, skill challenges work great. They have depth and drama and are far, far superior to single skill checks. The spotlight shining solely on skill monkeys outside of combat is over, and my players enjoy that they are equally engaged and valuable in or out of combat. For those reasons and others I find 4e handles noncombat situations far better than previous editions. It combines the freedom of roleplay and DM design of the early editions with mechanical support (imo, correctly) so it is about the character's and not the player's skill. I've already made that argument throughout here, but you chose instead to ignore that, "not argue specifics", and continue to rant on about how it sucks "just cause" without offering any reasoned debate or detail. [/QUOTE]

Verification