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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 6367563" data-attributes="member: 957">Actually, these two statements pretty well contradict each other.When you say that not liking it was head-in-the-sand you are doubling down on the idea that YOU know what other people like and they don't know themselves.  What you call "six years slandering" due to "head-in-the-sand" because they never offered a "fair chance", it is simply ludicrous.  You are simply decreeing on your own authority that lots of people went around refusing to even study the game (thus they had their head in the sand) and went out of their way to "slander" a game that they really knew so little about that the (in your assessment) happiness with the game they would have found was unknown to them.  This idea is a farce on MULTIPLE levels.  It is farcical to claim that people didn't look at the game (head-in-the-sand).  It is farcical to say that people would punish themselves by denying themselves fun for no reason.  It is farcical to claim that won't even bother to look at the actual game would in turn be motivated to go around slandering a game for years.None of it makes the least bit of sense either from a pure logic or a human nature perspective.On the other hand, refusing to look at the people who were down on 4E and accept that their position were honest and based on their honest tastes, is the very definition of "head-in-the-sand".I'll certainly give you "clear, balanced, and playable".  4E is was GREAT at what it did.However, "made possible a wider range of play" is a complete non-sequitur.The relevant point is that there were play styles that*some* people found great about prior games that were lacking in 4E.  That doesn't even mean they were *absent* in 4E.  Just that other game offered it better so 4E was not the game of preference.You are skimming close to the ballpark of the truth here.  If could find a way to let go of all your absolutes I think you could find a lot more peace in this reality.No one is looking for "exactly like it was".  {Note the general embracement of 5E, which is certainly not close to "exactly like" any prior edition)    But there is an obligation that for what people want, it must be among the best in class when compared to its competition.  If you need to hear that it supported more playstyles, for the sake of argument, I'll just agree.  But if you want to talk about elements of playstyles that people want then you are back to square one.  For some playstyles it is clearly the best thing ever.  There is no question that 4E has a devoted fan base.  For other play styles is it a C- in a marketplace with several A options.  There may be "no accounting for taste" when ti comes to evaluating why someone perceives something different than you.  But, I assure you, when the topic is selling to a mass market, accounting for taste, including tastes you may not share, is critical.</blockquote>

Verification