D&D 4E Is there a "Cliffs Notes" summary of the entire 4E experience?

[Savage Wombat]

That is what you are choosing to read into it. That was not specifically my intent.

Then I submit to you that "anti-4e vitriol" is what you are choosing to read into it, and the intent of the 4e criticizers is simply to express personal tastes.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Then I submit to you that "anti-4e vitriol" is what you are choosing to read into it, and the intent of the 4e criticizers is simply to express personal tastes.

If that is how you feel, fair enough. I disagree. There's nothing more I'm going to say on the matter.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

Yes, I did describe it that way. It was a historical monologue of how I felt at the time. I obviously don't feel that way now. I changed my mind after examining the evidence by playing the game. So there's no disconnect here.

You could have opened by saying it was just how you felt at the time. Unfortunately, the nature of the internet means tone doesn't translate as well as it does in other forms of print media, so it's incredibly easy to miscommunicate or be misunderstood. That essential element is what is fueling the more hostile replies you have been getting. People read your post and think you are speaking of your feelings now, not your feelings in the past.

If that's legitimately the way the devs felt, fine, whatever, but the way they went about it was actually just as bad as the edition wars you see on forums such as this. It was downright unprofessional. They should be setting a better example. I think they know that, so that's why I think that it was an intentional attempt to curry favour, but then again WotC has had some fantastically bad blunders in the past, so you never know.

To be blunt, the entire way they handled 4E was unprofessional. Their attitude in the beginning was dismissive to the point of insulting and their attitude once they saw where that got them was pretty much the same way, only with a different set of people being dismissed. Unfortunately, I suspect the way they acted was company-mandated; Hasbro is somewhat known for being a bit lacking in charisma.

Good, because their position is basically indefensible. Their behaviour is/was ignorant at best, and shameful at worst. But it sure got a lot of cathartic giggles and posts from the folks who felt "wronged" by 4e.

Criticism is fine, but they were just stirring the pot. They had to know what effect their statements would have.

It did. Just like the announcements of how 4E was different got a lot of cathartic giggles and posts from people who felt "wronged" by 3.5. Some of the early 4E announcements were rebukes of how 3.5 was handled.

And the same thing you say about them stirring the pot could be said about your post. The reactions to it more than demonstrate that, I believe.

I disagree. I think that I needed to say things how I felt at the time. My comments, in the historical context that they were presented, are not misinformation. They were my opinion at the time. I can't sugar coat it.

And as for my comments on the current state of things, this thread more than proves there is still plenty of anti-4e vitriol to be had around here. I don't see how stating a fact that we are witnessing is at all problematic.

Misinformation remains misinformation. It does not matter if it was connected to past feelings. It can be presented in such a way that it is clearly talking about the past, but that does not change that it is still misinformation. Reality does not bend just because we do not like what we see or feel reality must be wrong. It's not for lack of trying, either.

You could have still presented what you said in a way that presented it as your feelings of the time without sugar-coating it. There was no need for you to present it without at least saying "this post presents my past feelings." You had to know how it would turn out with the way you had worded it.

And, yes, there is plenty of anti-4E vitriol still around. Some of it is in your post. But there is also vitriol on the side defending 4E. Do you really believe you are innocent of it, given your post and how focused you are on defending 4E?

If you are really tired of the fighting... then stop defending 4E. You are an intelligent person. You have to know that defending it won't do any good at this point. It's been six years and defending it has not done a single bit of good in that entire time... and even may have been part of what ultimately killed it. The cause was lost years ago, just like the cause of defending 5E is lost now.

So if you wish to stop fighting... then simply stop. Ignore conversations like this. Don't waste your time defending an edition to people who are not going to listen. Don't waste your time trying to correct misconceptions that have been going on for six years. Just let people believe what they will believe, play your game with people who actually enjoy it and are willing to give it a shot, and move on. It really is that simple.

I should know... I was one of the 3.0 Avengers and one of the early 4vengers. And I wore both titles with pride. Now, looking back, I am ashamed of how I acted.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

You could have opened by saying it was just how you felt at the time. Unfortunately, the nature of the internet means tone doesn't translate as well as it does in other forms of print media, so it's incredibly easy to miscommunicate or be misunderstood. That essential element is what is fueling the more hostile replies you have been getting. People read your post and think you are speaking of your feelings now, not your feelings in the past.

Well that's my bad, I guess. I thought I made it abundantly clear that it was past-tense, leading up to now, since this thread is about the historical context of 4e, I prefaced my long part by saying that I was speaking about my history with the game, and that it was largely written in past-tense.

Then again, you're right, this is the internet.

To be blunt, the entire way they handled 4E was unprofessional. Their attitude in the beginning was dismissive to the point of insulting and their attitude once they saw where that got them was pretty much the same way, only with a different set of people being dismissed. Unfortunately, I suspect the way they acted was company-mandated; Hasbro is somewhat known for being a bit lacking in charisma.

It was no different when they introduced 3e. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be expected to learn from their mistakes. They claimed to be trying to reunite the community, but then commit blunders like that?

"Because Wotsee," (or Hasborg) s about all you can say about that.

It did. Just like the announcements of how 4E was different got a lot of cathartic giggles and posts from people who felt "wronged" by 3.5. Some of the early 4E announcements were rebukes of how 3.5 was handled.

That doesn't make it a good idea.

And the same thing you say about them stirring the pot could be said about your post. The reactions to it more than demonstrate that, I believe.

Or any number of posts in here? Mine was far from the most offensive, and certainly had no pot-stirring intent. But no matter what I said, there would be someone who would react poorly to it. I was polite, said nothing specifically disparaging in the current context against any edition, and made no ad hominem attacks. Nature of the beast, I guess.

Misinformation remains misinformation. It does not matter if it was connected to past feelings. It can be presented in such a way that it is clearly talking about the past, but that does not change that it is still misinformation.

It does matter, actually. I was illustrating a point, that being that opinions can change. I felt it necessary for context. I'm sorry that you disagree.

You could have still presented what you said in a way that presented it as your feelings of the time without sugar-coating it. There was no need for you to present it without at least saying "this post presents my past feelings." You had to know how it would turn out with the way you had worded it.

I did say just that;

Fair warning - this will be long. Here goes.

I think I need to cover in brief my history with the game/brand.

Sorry if that wasn't abundantly clear. I even included years as an indicator of past tense.

And, yes, there is plenty of anti-4E vitriol still around. Some of it is in your post. But there is also vitriol on the side defending 4E. Do you really believe you are innocent of it, given your post and how focused you are on defending 4E?

I made no disparaging remarks in a current context of any edition. So yeah, I'm not guitly of spreading vitriol, unless people are going to hold me accountable now for my past views. Seems a bit pointless.

If you are really tired of the fighting... then stop defending 4E. You are an intelligent person. You have to know that defending it won't do any good at this point. It's been six years and defending it has not done a single bit of good in that entire time... and even may have been part of what ultimately killed it. The cause was lost years ago, just like the cause of defending 5E is lost now.

I am tired of the fighting. All I want is for people to live and let live, but I won't stop defending my current edition of choice. People can hold their opinions all day long, but start spreading BS or stating opinion as fact and I have a problem. Besides, in these six years, or at least the four that I've been doing more than lurking, I've seen opinions change. Mine was one of them not even all that long before that.

So if you wish to stop fighting... then simply stop. Ignore conversations like this. Don't waste your time defending an edition to people who are not going to listen. Don't waste your time trying to correct misconceptions that have been going on for six years. Just let people believe what they will believe, play your game with people who actually enjoy it and are willing to give it a shot, and move on. It really is that simple.

I could say the same thing to you. Why didn't you ignore the conversation? I don't think I need to "move on" as you've put it, because I can still "play my game" with "people who actually enjoy it," (a potentially loaded statement if ever there was one) while still pointing out when people are acting off of incorrect information or arguing in bad faith. It's really that simple.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm presuming that your GM was able to do it, which would suggest that it wasn't impossible.

That said, chases have always been the sticky wicket of turn-based combat, since the turn-based presentation can model simultaneous actions adequately enough, but has a harder time representing actions whose results are modified by other simultaneous actions - hence the issue of it looking like you caught up to someone "before" their move, when in fact you're both moving at the same time.

That's not an issue of dissociation, however (since every metagame mechanic had a corresponding in-game action that it was representing, and vice versa). There's still no doubt that the combat rules are representing everyone acting at the same time, with those having a better initiative getting their action done just ahead of the other characters finishing their actions.

I'm not sure what you mean by the player's decision-making process not being directly equated to the character's. The scenario you described has no mechanics that affect the in-character narrative without having an in-game reason for doing so - it's just that the rules could arguably do a better job of it, not that they're failing to do it at all.

As an aside, how were you able to move, shoot, and then move back all on your turn? Was that some sort of Spring Attack thing?

Yeah, the DM allowed it - we don't use miniatures and I think that makes easier to house-rule that sort of initiative issue. I disagree with the notion that it's an artifact of chases, though - keeping pace is the sort of thing you see all the time in all sports; I have no experience with small-squad tactics but I imagine there are times you'd want to move with your foe instead of waiting 6 seconds until he does whatever he's doing and only then reacting.

That's why I say that the player's decision-making process doesn't directly equate to the character's. The players make their decisions on their turns - after the other players have taken their turn, not during. But people don't do something for 6 seconds while the rest of the local universe stays still; unless the world actually does move in a stop-motion manner, the player is making a decision before or after the other characters have acted, while the character is supposed to be making decisions during those actions. The information, and the decision-making process, is radically different: the wizard just put up a Wall of Force on his turn, so I won't rush him vs. I am going to rush that wizard because it looks like he's casting a spell (and then we use the resolution system to determine if I reach him before the Wall of Force goes up or not). It's not just a matter of who goes when; it's a matter of how much information the player has to make their decisions vs. how much information the character does. (They don't directly equate.)

That's why I like combat systems that have a declaration phase and then a resolution phase over of systems that tie the two together.

As for my guy's action, I was on a motorcycle so Spring Attack doesn't make sense, but maybe there's a special feat to do something like that? That would make no sense to me - I need special training to make a turn? Even with a pretty bad-ass (for 1st level) Drive modifier?

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

Well that's my bad, I guess. I thought I made it abundantly clear that it was past-tense, leading up to now, since this thread is about the historical context of 4e, I prefaced my long part by saying that I was speaking about my history with the game, and that it was largely written in past-tense.

Then again, you're right, this is the internet.

Unfortunately, it's how the internet is >.<

It was no different when they introduced 3e. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be expected to learn from their mistakes. They claimed to be trying to reunite the community, but then commit blunders like that?

"Because Wotsee," (or Hasborg) s about all you can say about that.

That doesn't make it a good idea.

Given their successful marketing in so many areas, one would think they could figure out the DnD blunders.

Or any number of posts in here? Mine was far from the most offensive, and certainly had no pot-stirring intent. But no matter what I said, there would be someone who would react poorly to it. I was polite, said nothing specifically disparaging in the current context against any edition, and made no ad hominem attacks. Nature of the beast, I guess.

Your's was. That and the desire to not end up in a massive fight are why I am talking to you and not the others. And, yeah, people would react poorly to it. Nature of the internet. But, I think far fewer would have if worded right. But, eh. We can debate alternate timelines some other time.

It does matter, actually. I was illustrating a point, that being that opinions can change. I felt it necessary for context. I'm sorry that you disagree.

I do not disagree that it is not necessary for context; I disagree that it is not misinformation. The essential element of something does not change based upon circumstances; dihydrogen monoxide is still hydrogen and oxygen no matter whether it is in solid, liquid, or gaseous form. But clearer statement of context is what differentiates between vapor, water, and ice. Such is the issue with stating the past. Anymore, so many people are offended by presentations of it in certain ways, no matter if online or not, that it has to be carefully presented. And even then, some people will still be offended... but properly presented and people will point out that the issue of the offense is misdirected if spoken against the presenter.

So, my issue is not that it is necessary, but how it was presented. Mainly because it raised my hackles. However, I took a bit of time to work through that and lower my own hackles a bit before speaking.

I did say just that;

Sorry if that wasn't abundantly clear. I even included years as an indicator of past tense.

You did, but the way presented did not give any indicator as to how many of those feelings are not still current. Humans are unique in that they have the capacity to hold emotional reactions to specific events while reacting differently to similar events. As such, one never fully knows if a person still holds emotional reactions to events in the past unless they have stated a definite on it. That is part of why I try to be more exacting in my own language at times.

I made no disparaging remarks in a current context of any edition. So yeah, I'm not guitly of spreading vitriol, unless people are going to hold me accountable now for my past views. Seems a bit pointless.

It is pointless. So is all of the fighting on this thread. The entire conflict is pointless. And yet, it matters enough to some people that they are still here and still holding the same conflicts that have not been solved in six years. And it still matters to you enough that you are still going to defend, despite the fact your defense will do nothing except continue the fighting and ultimately prove just as pointless. Just like the attacks on 4E do nothing except continue the fighting and ultimately prove just as pointless.

And, thus, the circle of conflict shall continue.

I am tired of the fighting. All I want is for people to live and let live, but I won't stop defending my current edition of choice. People can hold their opinions all day long, but start spreading BS or stating opinion as fact and I have a problem. Besides, in these six years, or at least the four that I've been doing more than lurking, I've seen opinions change. Mine was one of them not even all that long before that.

Do you realize you just inadvertently admitted that you are trying to change people's opinions to be in favor of 4E? Even if you did not mean to say it, that is how it looks. And if you are hoping to live and let live, why does it matter that opinions change? Why does it matter that some people state opinion as fact? As long as they do not state it in an inflammatory manner and are not arguing with someone, there is no need to challenge it. So why are you so dedicated to challenging it?

I could say the same thing to you. Why didn't you ignore the conversation? I don't think I need to "move on" as you've put it, because I can still "play my game" with "people who actually enjoy it," (a potentially loaded statement if ever there was one) while still pointing out when people are acting off of incorrect information or arguing in bad faith. It's really that simple.

I have my reasons. I will not state they are good reasons. But you could say I'm trying to understand who I was and why it mattered so much.

And I will admit my statement was potentially loaded. I cannot deny it was, since I have your reaction telling me otherwise. I can say I do not see how it is that continuing the same battle you are tired of will do any good. I can say that to every person who is continuing to fight it. And, ultimately, my words will prove just as useless as your efforts will, and your efforts will prove just as useless as the efforts of those you will end up fighting.

It's just a game; the opinions of those who do not agree with you shouldn't even matter to you as long as you have people willing to play the game with you. And that goes for those who oppose 4E as well.

 

[Plane Sailing]

After 80+ pages I think this thread has probably had all the positive things said that are being said! and it is generating a lot of reported posts right now, so I'm closing it.

Thanks

 

[Umbran]

Why doesn't this thread prove that there is still plenty of vitriol on both sides?

For the record, it does, which is why the thread is now closed.