Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6027584" data-attributes="member: 8461">Hence why I said "even if it was just which one was listed as the primary way to do so while the others were secondary." <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Except I never said that. I said that I think they are an influence on it, but not the only influence.3E didn't introduce point-buy, it had already been listed (not primarily, but as an alternative, IIRC) in previous editions. Which was sort of the point - it was easy to see how point-buy went from not being listed, to being listed as an after-thought, to being listed as an alternative, to being listed as the primary, as editions changed.You can say that that was a reaction to what people wanted, and that's probably true. You can also say that that helped shape perceptions among those who started playing the game in a given edition, and I think that's true also.If the point-buy option was listed last among six options, it was easy to see it as being an after-thought, and that the "right" way to do it was with the way listed first. I don't see why my saying that seems to upset you so much. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/worried.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":-S" title="Uhm    :-S" data-shortname=":-S" />I'm glad we agree that I'm not doing that, then. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />I think you've misunderstood what I meant in my previous posts, as I'm simply saying that I think the various editions have sent different messages on different aspects of game-play - somehow you think that's passive-aggressive edition warring, which seems silly to me.I always enjoy hearing people talk about how they don't want to get sucked into a debate on something one paragraph after they start debating it. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />Almost as large as the strawman of putting words into someone else's mouth!Please feel free to start debating what is and isn't a strawman, and then say how you don't want to start debating it. <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />The issue with where point-buy originated is relatively meaningless for people who weren't paying attention to the whole of the RPG hobby, the way designers were. I'm more talking about people who started with D&D, and the impressions that were made by the first set of rules they read and gamed with.But of course, you'd never adopt a "my way or I don't play" attitude.That's nice, but this isn't about you. I'm only noting that my personal opinion is that most people who want to power-game find that point-buying their stats is more conducive to that.Which is sort of the heart of my post...by the conventional wisdom, I wouldn't like playing a character with poor stats in a class I don't like. But I tried it anyway, and found out that I enjoyed it after all. There's value in trying something you don't think you'll like, is all I'm saying.</blockquote>

Verification