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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="paradox42" data-source="post: 4382822" data-attributes="member: 29746">This will be my final word on this subject, since (as previously stated) I am not interested in debate. You asked what I consider to be 4th Edition's bad ideas; I listed them. Even that was more effort than I really cared to spend on the subject. I have no desire to become an "edition warrior" and will not do so. I will, however, take some small time to respond to the insults in this last post.My claims are irrational because I have not bothered to cover my opinions with reason or logic, as you have. Your support for aspects of 4th Edition is in many cases just as irrational as my dislike for those same aspects, but you went to the trouble of rationalizing those opinions (i.e. "I like this. Now why is that?") whereas I did not bother to rationalize my dislike. Opinions are, by definition, fundamentally emotional reactions to a thing or event, and therefore are all irrational in their own right. People cover the opinions they want to defend with chains of reasoning that sound logical to them (even if they don't necessarily sound logical to anyone else). In my case, my opinion is negative, and I'm not interested in spending the effort to defend it with logic or math- I would consider such effort to be a waste. I'm much more interested in offering constructive criticism where I can come up with some.A worthy goal, since understanding is the foundation of civilized discourse. However, it is clear from our posts that many (if not most) of the aspects of 4th Edition that you consider to be positives, I consider to be negatives. As long as we acknowledge that we all live in a diverse world where different people have differing opinions regarding the same objects, ideas, or events, and that's okay, we can get along. Many of the things that appeal to you about 4th Edition are precisely the things which turn me off about it. Accept it and move on, because I don't feel like going to the trouble of explaining myself. I frankly have better things to do.A fair point in any argument about the merits of 3.X, but irrelevant to a discussion of what I dislike in 4th Edition. I have never claimed that 3.X is perfect, nor would I ever make such a claim. It has plenty of warts, and plenty of things which while still gold are perhaps tarnished a bit with some mold or other detritus of past years. That's what house rules are for. Rest assured that if I ever do, someday, run a 4th Edition game, I will put many house rules into place in that game as well.Here, in a reverse of me stating opinions that are not understood by you, we have an argument that I've seen more times than I can even remember- and that has never washed with me. It just makes no sense in my book. "Special" is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. Just because Tom and his buddies can all have such a weapon, does not mean that they all want to or will. It does not mean that when the characters find one in a treasure pile, that it isn't the only one of its kind in the cosmos at that time.Yes you did, and I ignored that rule immediately since (as stated above) the argument it's based on has never been sensible to me. What I did do is declare a new category of Major Artifact in my game, after the PCs hit divinity, which is directly linked to the soul of a deity and thus grows as the deity does- it is up to the individual deity whether or not to have one or more. Most of my players, after learning that these items could give them access to divine abilities beyond those granted to them purely by divine ranks alone, opted to take four- but a few did not, and were accordingly granted extra divine slots per the rules hammered out in this very forum (though obviously not this very thread). So the "rule of 4" is still sort of in there, just not as absolute as you had it.I think, if you can turn a harsh spotlight on your own thinking, that you'll see that most of your own thinking about 4th Edition is just as irrational at the base- you've just gone to some trouble to shore it up and explain it to make it look rational. You fundamentally like many (if not most) of the things that I fundamentally dislike. The difference is, I'm not interested in explaining myself- I recognize my opinions as opinions and accept that not everybody will share them. Moving on.It is accepted as psychological fact that reasoning is something typically used to defend an irrational opinion, rather than something that opinions are themselves based on. I'm of the opinion that I've wallowed in too much negativity in my life, and accordingly am not interested in bothering to shore up my negative opinions with reason. <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=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification