Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 4027138" data-attributes="member: 54843">Heh, I like how this thread somehow focused itself into every anti-4e person on the forum vs. Mourn...The funny part is, the argument here is almost entirely about 4e's marketing, not the game itself, which seems kind of pointless - except that it's rhetorically useful for anti-4e arguments.You guys have pointed out places where you think the WOTC people are too negative in their portrayal of earlier editions. I think the more relevant question is, are they right in those criticisms? Reynard pointed out the CR system as an example of WOTC complaining about an element of 3e that really was suboptimal. Well... so what? Good for them! If it WAS crappy, and WE know it was crappy, and THEY know it was crappy, why should they mince words?I'm thinking that if some of you guys stepped back a few paces from your rhetoric and thought about the systems you're defending, many of them actually could use some improvement. I think that, for example, the 3e grapple rules are a bit like 2e THAC0: the only reason you'd want to cling of them is out of sheer perversity. No, they don't ruin 3e or grind combat to a halt (for an experienced group), but they're annoying, and why SHOULDN'T they be fixed? And why shouldn't WotC poke fun at them for sucking, or make a point of saying that they'll fix them?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ZombieRoboNinja, post: 4027138, member: 54843"] Heh, I like how this thread somehow focused itself into every anti-4e person on the forum vs. Mourn... The funny part is, the argument here is almost entirely about 4e's marketing, not the game itself, which seems kind of pointless - except that it's rhetorically useful for anti-4e arguments. You guys have pointed out places where you think the WOTC people are too negative in their portrayal of earlier editions. I think the more relevant question is, are they right in those criticisms? Reynard pointed out the CR system as an example of WOTC complaining about an element of 3e that really was suboptimal. Well... so what? Good for them! If it WAS crappy, and WE know it was crappy, and THEY know it was crappy, why should they mince words? I'm thinking that if some of you guys stepped back a few paces from your rhetoric and thought about the systems you're defending, many of them actually could use some improvement. I think that, for example, the 3e grapple rules are a bit like 2e THAC0: the only reason you'd want to cling of them is out of sheer perversity. No, they don't ruin 3e or grind combat to a halt (for an experienced group), but they're annoying, and why SHOULDN'T they be fixed? And why shouldn't WotC poke fun at them for sucking, or make a point of saying that they'll fix them? [/QUOTE]

Verification