Regarding "unfair comparisons": part of the problem for me is that even if you give 4e the benefit of the doubt, and assume that all it's trying to be is an "exciting fantasy-themed combat engine", it completely fails at the "exciting" part.
A value judgement such as this one is how *not* to get your point across. Thanks for illustrating!
Admin here. And folks, this post is an excellent illustration of how not to discuss something. It's full of insults and cheap shots. When you're discussing a contentious subject, please find a better way to talk to someone you disagree with; responding like only makes the thread worse. ~ PCat
It's obviously well-put-together and coherent (due in no small part to bringing over the 3e combat system mostly unchanged),
And you take the faint praise you give your hated system, and twist it to apply to the one you like. Good job!
but none of the playtesters or designers seemed to have put the game to a "WoW stopwatch test". One- to three-hour combats, that fail to threaten the PCs in any meaningful/dramatic way (i.e. what the DMG calls a level-appropriate encounter), aren't enjoyable.
Great one here, you take a blanket assumption, fail to validate it in any way, and the slap your opinion on the end, couched as a fact.
You can point to other design priorities that led to this state of affairs (e.g. making everyone a "spellcaster" to give everyone at the table "cool" stuff to do, inflating monster HP and nerfing monster damage to remove any chance of one-shot/round kills and to allow more time for "tactical opportunities" to develop), but regardless of how it came about, the result is suspect.
Here's another good tactic, slap quotes around things to emphasize your sarcstic intent. I mean, you hate 4e, so obviously there isn't anything cool about it, right? You take the opportunity to state your opinion as fact.
I'm not really an edition warrior
Denial! Great! For those that skipped the first half of your post, obviously. . .
but my own vote is in favor of keeping the "vigorous debate" going in some fashion (ideally without people taking it personally, getting bummed out by the negative vibes etc., although "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" generally).
Of course you'd like to continue the arguing, you are super good at it. and breaking eggs? Why not!
Beyond the abstract/impractical goal of getting WOTC to stop selling this product, my immediate interest in the discussion is to a) figure out how to "fix" 4e (so I can run a better game without having to tell my players to go buy another set of rulebooks), and to b) get some understanding of "what they were smoking" in the design process (e.g. to what extent this was the product of pure "ganz falsch" design ideology, or whether it was really the result of large numbers of potential customers clamoring for grindfest combats).
. . .and finish with a half-assed attempt to contribute to the thread. Nice try. I don't know "what you were smoking" trying to stick this into an *anti-edition war thread*?! This is pure trash, and I'm tempted to believe it was all done in jest. . .except there's no little j/k at the end, or winking smiley.
Again. Think there's a problem with someone's post? Report it. But responding like this just makes us very, very cranky.
This is why I don't like edition wars, it draws unproductive criticisms like this. The thread isn't even about:
1)4e's system in general
2)The design of said system
3)grind of combat
4)illicit drugs taken by designers
What is the mindset behind such a post? Reply please? Let us know? PM me if you don't want to tell all of Enworld. . .I must know though, because it is impossible for me to fathom.
Jay
the boards were more interesting back then (and busier) because 4e was still novel and there were plenty of fresh topics to discuss, but there was certainly more antagonism and heated debates than there is now.
