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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 5716202" data-attributes="member: 1165">1) People hate change.I've often talked about how I went through StarCraft II hate threads on forums. (I was on the "liking change" side of things.) The "anti-change" side creates most of the heat.I'm also a big contributor at Wikia, and am generally on the "not liking change" side of things there. Still, lots of hatred, and the "anti-change" side creates most of the heat.2) Changes that are sometimes incongruous. Like psionics, moving away from the AEDU sparks fear. When you use a psionic theme on a non-psionic character, or vice versa, it creates problems. It reminds you that most DnD material is not playtested together.3) People seek out evidence that supports their views, and remember it more strongly than evidence that does not.4) Pro-change people refuse to admit that some of their positions could be wrong. (I'm a big fan of the Peter Sandman communication methods. If your side has a fault, admit it right away.) I recall a thread here a month or two back where an Essentials thief used a bunch of stuff (some Essentials, some not) to create a character widely seen as broken (not by the OP, of course). Obviously using Essentials by itself wasn't breaking the character, but the OP's refusal to admit that using Essentials was part of the problem and that many people would be uncomfortable with such a character didn't help matters. On a related note, WotC made strikers a lot better (especially rogues) but didn't do a good job of communicating why those changes were needed or warranted.When anti-change people admitted that some parts of StarCraft I were boring, and pro-change people admitted that there weren't enough macro options in StarCraft II for higher-skilled players, the flamewars dropped off. For a while. (Human nature, though, the flames came back.)Some problematic rules were brought back in Essentials. Instant Friends, I'm looking at you. Sure, there's problematic rules in non-Essentials stuff too, but something like "Instant Friends" sticks in my craw. (This is from someone who likes the new wizard powers, but not necessarily the mage class itself.)5) Complaining about games you don't like.There's a trope called that at TVTropes.6) Essentials is seen as 4.5e by many, and in competition with previous classes. 3.5 ran into the same problem, although it was generally better received. Still, converting an adventure from 3.0 to 3.5 took me a lot of time. I had to change pretty much every NPC in the adventure - even converting from the lame 3.0 ranger to the not-so-lame 3.5 ranger was tiring. See above points about combinations. I would have been happier if there'd just been a new half-edition. This causes interference in learning - you think the rules work one way, but they work another...6) My own opinion is that some parts of Essentials are good, and some aren't. Sometimes I dislike a part of Essentials due to flavor and not rules reasons. I like the rules of the knight and thief, a lot. I do not like the flavor of the new rangers (primal powers, and still not getting away from nonsensical fighting styles). I do not like the rules of the warpriest (all melee, all the time). I naturally exclude things from the game, if only to keep my sanity and make it possible to regulate balance - the stuff in the PH1 is a lot less than the literally thousands of powers out there, so naturally I'm much more familiar with the broken stuff in the PH1 than in the PH2/3/MP1&2/DP/AP/HoS/HotFK1-2/etc. The only times I've had really broken PCs in my game, people were using stuff from Martial Power and Divine Power. (They use the CB, and apparently can't tell when they're straying beyond the rules I'm allowing.)</blockquote>

Verification