Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7750648" data-attributes="member: 996">ASCII characters 34 &amp; 65 in conjunction have suddenly been coming up disproportionately in this thread.&nbsp; 'Grid Dependence' has been a fakeversy since AD&amp;D fans started attacking 3e for it, quite early in the current millennium, so I suppose it was inevitable.That 5e's support for TotM consists prettymuch entirely of just using the term in a positive way as it professes to 'default' to it, makes it more than a little ironic, too.&nbsp;Very much so, sure.&nbsp; And there's often ways back from death in genre, too.&nbsp; Usually more involved than pushing a Vancian spell button, but a staple. &nbsp;I suspect it wasn't an accident.&nbsp; It&nbsp; may have been selection bias or confirmation bias, for instance.&nbsp; Myself, I loved 4e (like I have 1e &amp; 3.5 - a bit less than 1e, if we're feeding sibling rivalries), despised M:tG (&quot;Tragic: the Addiction&quot;), only played tactical games like Battletech or Carwars when there was nothing else to do, and won't touch a video game (the last one I played was Asteroids), CRPG, or MMO.&nbsp; &nbsp;5e kept it in a side-bar, they just didn't dare attach a jargon term to it.&nbsp; You could add a monster ability that kicked in 'when reduced to 1/2 hps' or worked vs targets that 'had taken at least half their hps in damage' quite easily.&nbsp; It's just a little wordy, because no jargon.Nod.&nbsp; The first time we hit Paragon, it was like running full tilt into a gelatinous cube. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; A few levels later it'd sped back up again. FWIW.&nbsp; Character sheets in the on-line builder were weirdly inflated /and/ left out critical information, it was some egregiously bad formatting.&nbsp; Prior to that all that made sheets long was printing out the full texts of powers &amp; items available to the character - if you printed out the full texts of spells available to casters in any other ed, it'd've been far longer...&nbsp;'Ambivalent' is an odd way to put &quot;presented the event with a level of uncertainty.&quot; OK. &nbsp;I am, too, but, IMX, the longer a player being introduced to 4e had played earlier editions, and the earlier the editions they played, the more disequilibrium they experienced in learning 4e.&nbsp; It was just too unfamiliar, and the experience of 'not getting' something you identify as having 'mastered' can be disconcerting.&nbsp; &nbsp;I was in club at the time that was heavily weighted towards Storyteller and deeply prejudiced against D&amp;D - they took to 4e easily.&nbsp; It was very much the &quot;not-D&amp;D D&amp;D&quot; in good ways as well as bad.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;And it wasn't burned on YouTube?&nbsp; Er, I mean, video tape?&nbsp; Weird.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7750648, member: 996"] ASCII characters 34 & 65 in conjunction have suddenly been coming up disproportionately in this thread. 'Grid Dependence' has been a fakeversy since AD&D fans started attacking 3e for it, quite early in the current millennium, so I suppose it was inevitable. That 5e's support for TotM consists prettymuch entirely of just using the term in a positive way as it professes to 'default' to it, makes it more than a little ironic, too. Very much so, sure. And there's often ways back from death in genre, too. Usually more involved than pushing a Vancian spell button, but a staple. I suspect it wasn't an accident. It may have been selection bias or confirmation bias, for instance. Myself, I loved 4e (like I have 1e & 3.5 - a bit less than 1e, if we're feeding sibling rivalries), despised M:tG ("Tragic: the Addiction"), only played tactical games like Battletech or Carwars when there was nothing else to do, and won't touch a video game (the last one I played was Asteroids), CRPG, or MMO. 5e kept it in a side-bar, they just didn't dare attach a jargon term to it. You could add a monster ability that kicked in 'when reduced to 1/2 hps' or worked vs targets that 'had taken at least half their hps in damage' quite easily. It's just a little wordy, because no jargon. Nod. The first time we hit Paragon, it was like running full tilt into a gelatinous cube. ;) A few levels later it'd sped back up again. FWIW. Character sheets in the on-line builder were weirdly inflated /and/ left out critical information, it was some egregiously bad formatting. Prior to that all that made sheets long was printing out the full texts of powers & items available to the character - if you printed out the full texts of spells available to casters in any other ed, it'd've been far longer... 'Ambivalent' is an odd way to put "presented the event with a level of uncertainty." OK. I am, too, but, IMX, the longer a player being introduced to 4e had played earlier editions, and the earlier the editions they played, the more disequilibrium they experienced in learning 4e. It was just too unfamiliar, and the experience of 'not getting' something you identify as having 'mastered' can be disconcerting. I was in club at the time that was heavily weighted towards Storyteller and deeply prejudiced against D&D - they took to 4e easily. It was very much the "not-D&D D&D" in good ways as well as bad. ;) And it wasn't burned on YouTube? Er, I mean, video tape? Weird. [/QUOTE]

Verification