Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7750483" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I would love to know who those fans are.  Back when I first started posting here 6 years ago, there were dozens and dozens and dozens of legitimately active (in terms of posting habits) 4e players on these boards.  Now, the bulk of those participants have (very unfortunately as most of them had very interesting things to say) gone elsewhere or just stopped posting altogether.  RPG.Net has a hugely active 4e community.Something Awful is the same.Never have I seen an actual 4e advocate, here or in any of those places, describe the game in ignorant and vanilla edition-warrior language (the language of someone who doesn't understand and hates the game) such as "a skirmish miniatures game you can tack role playing on."  Never.  Not once.Never.  Perhaps you're confusing what you have read?  Perhaps what you have read is a nuanced discussion where someone (who actually likes 4e) said something to the effect of:a)  4e's character niches are tightly focused and transparently engineered (and then communicated in the text) toward playing a classic role in D&D; protect my allies, support my allies, kill the bad guys, control the battlefield/dictate the terms of engagement.  In that way, the coherent design is more like you'll find in a well-built MMO than in any other edition in history.orb)  The exciting tactical overhead and interesting decision-points for players (both on-turn and off-turn) in 4e combats remind me less of classic D&D and more of an action-adventure CRPG.or c)  The conflict-charged, tightly-focused "world on fire" premise and thematic setting components/cosmology of 4e reminds me more of Diablo or God of War than Forgotten Realms.Those are things a 4e advocate (who actually likes the game) may say to describe the game (with reference to video games).  Here is another way that a 4e advocate who has played a lot of indie games and card games like MtG (therefore they understand how all 3 work) might also say something like:"Wow, Magic's Control decks are about (1) action denial, (2) creature-sweeping, and (3) rearranging/dictating the terms of engagement/field of play (via things like scrying or moving cards in and out of hands, around in the deck, in/out of the graveyard)...ha, its almost like the 4e designers cribbed that directly from WotC's main property...or those Magic guys were consulted!"or"Wow, 4e is all about the conflict-charged scene (the encounter) rather than serial exploration...that is just like so many indie games!"Here is how a 4e advocate who has played athletics at a high level and been involved in martial arts much of their life might describe the 4e Fighter:"Wow, the active and passive melee control features of the 4e Fighter are so immersive.  They harken deeply to the kind of profound and intense catch 22 play that you live every moment when rolling on the mat with a jujitsu player that is either as dangerous or more dangerous than you.  They also remind me of checking someone in hockey or basketball where you're always trying to dictate the terms by taking something away but giving something up that is a baited trap/less than ideal option for the guy you are either manning up against or who has come into the zone you're defending.  Brilliantly conceived!Not something to the effect of "4e is basically not a roleplaying game."  That is precisely the kind of nonsense that such a person would have been pushing back against for years by people who utterly hated the game and endlessly disrupted interesting conversations by pushing that line either explicitly or implicitly (hence making actual functional and enjoyable conversation all but impossible).</blockquote>

Verification