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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5222388" data-attributes="member: 18280">Nah.  The "heart of the edition wars" is the supposition that, when someone claims a preference that varies from the baseline of edition X, fans of edition X automatically assume that the person making the claim is simply doing so to slam edition X, or to be "cool", or whatever.  Anything other than the supposition that the statement is valid at face value.Are we talking about the Bad Things example?  I don't believe that either side is stating their preference simply to slam the other, to be "cool", or whatever.  I assume that, despite the diatribe that arises, the base of what is happening is, in fact, people stating what they honestly believe.Moreover, if the same behaviour happens with both the newer and older editions, how can "grognards" necessarily be fans of older editions?  Or do you propose that "grognards" and "newnards" are somehow different?That difference is what I am questioning the existence of.I wonder if Melan would agree with your summary?  I rather suspect not, and that you are reading his post in a rather uncharitable light.AFAICT, the core of Melan's post is:All in all, what we are seeing is the emergence of a philosophy that denies and stifles excellence while encouraging mediocrity and poor play.  Attempting to "protect" gamers from their own mistakes will not result in better games - it will limit self-expression, the freedom of creativity and hinder the natural and easy learning process most of us have gone through. It will subtly, although of course not completely, shift roleplaying games towards more passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment. The roleplaying hobby will be poorer for it, and it can also be expected to experience slow and continuous shrinkage as it becomes apparent to people that passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment offer much better alternatives than sitting around a table and rolling polyhedral dice.Which seems, to me, to be a valid concern.There is no argument at all about the rules being bad; the argument seems to be about market forces AFAICT, and how they have influenced the presentation of the game.  Far from claiming that 4e "isn't really what the customers want", it seems to be suggesting that "what the customers want" isn't necessarily what makes the best game.The argument boils down to:  "Lowering the bar for success perforce lowers the heights that can be attained."  At least as I read it.  And I would argue that this is, in fact, true.Whether or not 4e actually lowers the bar is, obviously, a different argument.  Or, as Melan put it:  "I don't claim to be universally right. These are my subjective conclusions based on browsing through the core books and having read a good number of message board discussions, particularly ENWorld."  He goes on to agree, more than once, that his opinion of 4e is not necessarily accurate.  This is an IF/THEN statement of sorts.  IF his perception is valid, THEN this is the result he foresees.  IF you don't think his perception is valid, THEN neither should you find his conclusions valid.However, he is very clear that he is talking about the difference between how he defines "fun" and how WotC does:  "I just find it likely that 4e will nudge the hobby in a direction I personally dislike. That will have marginal effects on my own gaming, but it will be annoying in online discussions."This is, therefore, not an argument that the game isn't played for enjoyment, but rather that the kind of enjoyment endorsed by WotC with its current game isn't what the author actually finds "fun".  Which supports my point.I would, therefore, suggest that you are colouring the post the way you wish to in order to make it fit the point you wish to make.RC</blockquote>

Verification