Getting tired of hearing "Grognard" and "Nostalgia"

[ForeverSlayer]

And you pulled up all of one quote, which wasn't even about any specific edition of the game, before you had to go to WotC boards to pull up more. You're reaching pretty far.



No, trying to change what he said would be going back and editing his original posts. This is paraphrasing those posts.

He doesn't have to go back and edit anything. Just saying "Oh that's not what I really meant" is easier.

 

[Dannager]

And you pulled up all of one quote, which wasn't even about any specific edition of the game,

It wasn't even about editions of the game period. We were having a discussion about publishing formats.

 

[Dannager]

He doesn't have to go back and edit anything. Just saying "Oh that's not what I really meant" is easier.

I didn't say "Oh that's not what I really meant."

I pointed out that that's not even what I said, and that it's frankly kind of sad that you continue to persist in pointlessly demonizing anyone.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There are certain aspects of 4th edition that I do like but I like Pathfinder better. I actually witnessed someone on the Wizards boards arguing with someone who tried 4th edition, didn't like it and said they preferred Pathfinder to 4th edition. Then you had someone telling this person that the only liked it because of nostalgia reasons. They said there was no way that person could like Pathfinder over 4th edition because 4th edition was such a superior system.

Technically, as a system, sure 4e was superior to 3.5 - it was just a better-balanced, more consistent, more playable system. That doesn't make it fun, just technically well-executed. Lots of other things besides nostalgia come into whether you like a game or not. A technically well-done game can be extremely dry and boring in delivery, for instance, and that can put you off whether you've ever played any game before or not. A good system can be married to a bad setting, or vice-versa. 4e had virtually no setting at all linked to it. Right there, if you like a wealth of evocative setting information, 4e failed to deliver much of anything.

Then, there are things that are technically 'good' or, say, more sophisticated, that people just don't like. There are people who prefer ordinary breaks and manual transmision. Modern anti-lock breaks and automatics actually perform /really/ well now, but some folks prefer the sense of control they get doing it themselves. 4e makes the DMs job a lot easier - that makes it a better system, but, it also gives the DM the sense that what he's doing is less important or more constrained (it's not, he can ignore any rule or guideline he likes), but the sense of it can be quite real.

There's also play styles. Certain aproaches to game design yield games that favor one style or another. 4e was a good game that works well with an abstract or narrativist or gamist style, while 3e was a pretty good game that really catered to a simulationist style, and AD&D 2e was a pretty poor game that tried to apeal to setting-oriented a 'storytelling' style that was in vogue in the 90s, and it's predecessors were positively primitive games that apealed to (or encouraged?) an explorative - I'd even say 'paranoid' sort of style.

And, finally, there are those who don't like what a good system accomplishes. Balance, I think is the most obvious culprit. A balanced game is great because it provides a lot of viable, meaningful choices, and a relatively new or casual player can build a straightforward character that's viable alongside a more experienced or determined player's carefully-optimized character. That is, it's great if you think 1000s of hours of RPG experience, and meticulously masterful character building shoudn't be rewarded in play. 3e - according to one developer who worked on it, anyway - intentionally includes overpowered and 'trap' options and power combos to 'reward system mastery.' 3e was not exactly a dismal failure, in spite of all the complaints aired about how 'imbalanced' it could be.

 

[malraux]

Why not ignore the forums where you find stuff you dislike? This looks like just trying to pick a fight with people that already disposed to be annoyed by these antics.

 

[Pentius]

He doesn't have to go back and edit anything. Just saying "Oh that's not what I really meant" is easier.

Just like you don't have to prove a point, when saying "No, this is what he really meant" is easier?

It wasn't even about editions of the game period. We were having a discussion about publishing formats.

Correction accepted, but I feel my point stands.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Okay, you're right, there is more- you're also getting personally insulting with a number of posters here.

Other than that, though, how about if you answer my question: what is there to discuss, other than picking a fight? I'm down to discuss it, but not if the whole point is just to piss everyone off and troll the people that like 4e.

Actually there is lots to discuss. The fact of the matter is, being called a grognard just because they don't like 4th edition and saying they only like it for "nostalgia" sake isn't right.

I'm just throwing back punches after they've been thrown at me.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Why not ignore the forums where you find stuff you dislike? This looks like just trying to pick a fight with people that already disposed to be annoyed by these antics.

If you are going to throw yourself in front of the car then don't complain when you get hit.

This actually wasn't aimed at anyone in particular until someone thought they needed proof.

 

[ppaladin123]

Actually there is lots to discuss. The fact of the matter is, being called a grognard just because they don't like 4th edition and saying they only like it for "nostalgia" sake isn't right.

I think everyone agrees with this in abstract. So there isn't much more to say other than accusing people of doing it. Would you like to talk about the psychology behind such stances? Statistics on the likelihood of seeing ad hominem attacks? What?

You aren't giving people much to work with in terms of debate material. Note: making it personal is not debate material.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Technically, as a system, sure 4e was superior to 3.5 - it was just a better-balanced, more consistent, more playable system. That doesn't make it fun, just technically well-executed. Lots of other things besides nostalgia come into whether you like a game or not. A technically well-done game can be extremely dry and boring in delivery, for instance, and that can put you off whether you've ever played any game before or not. A good system can be married to a bad setting, or vice-versa. 4e had virtually no setting at all linked to it. Right there, if you like a wealth of evocative setting information, 4e failed to deliver much of anything.

Well part of this is opinion based. I find that with some people they find that Pathfinder is the better, consistent and playable system.

Then, there are things that are technically 'good' or, say, more sophisticated, that people just don't like. There are people who prefer ordinary breaks and manual transmision. Modern anti-lock breaks and automatics actually perform /really/ well now, but some folks prefer the sense of control they get doing it themselves. 4e makes the DMs job a lot easier - that makes it a better system, but, it also gives the DM the sense that what he's doing is less important or more constrained (it's not, he can ignore any rule or guideline he likes), but the sense of it can be quite real.

Also a matter of opinion. Some people find that Pathfinder is a lot easier to DM than 4th edition. It's better for some but not everyone.

There's also play styles. Certain aproaches to game design yield games that favor one style or another. 4e was a good game that works well with an abstract or narrativist or gamist style, while 3e was a pretty good game that really catered to a simulationist style, and AD&D 2e was a pretty poor game that tried to apeal to setting-oriented a 'storytelling' style that was in vogue in the 90s, and it's predecessors were positively primitive games that apealed to (or encouraged?) an explorative - I'd even say 'paranoid' sort of style.

And, finally, there are those who don't like what a good system accomplishes. Balance, I think is the most obvious culprit. A balanced game is great because it provides a lot of viable, meaningful choices, and a relatively new or casual player can build a straightforward character that's viable alongside a more experienced or determined player's carefully-optimized character. That is, it's great if you think 1000s of hours of RPG experience, and meticulously masterful character building shoudn't be rewarded in play. 3e - according to one developer who worked on it, anyway - intentionally includes overpowered and 'trap' options and power combos to 'reward system mastery.' 3e was not exactly a dismal failure, in spite of all the complaints aired about how 'imbalanced' it could be.

I will say that 3rd edition was made easier with system mastery but that is actually more of a play style. Being a system geared more towards intermediate to expert DM's doesn't make the system less or inferior.

above