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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4119977" data-attributes="member: 22779">Now, there's a cogent criticism that I can get behind.  ((Not too sure what it has to do with what you quoted, but, that's a different thing))  I think that's completely fair to say.  D&D was dying when 3e came out.  TSR had gone belly up.  The market dominance of D&D was being chipped away pretty hard at the time.None of that is true today.  And, I agree that 4e has a much larger hurdle in trying to overcome its predecessor than 3e did.I'm not too sure about the wedge you mention and I think that it's more an internet thing, but, time will tell.  But, this is a bit of a separate issue from what I'm discussing with KM.  I have zero problem, as I mentioned before, with someone having a specific criticism of the game.  I have my own as well.  But, my beef is exactly the same one I had with 3e critics and that is vague, loose terms being tossed around as if they were facts.  Take the videogamey bit for a second.  KM states pretty plainly that 4e is leaning more towards video games.  Yet, in another thread, we have the following excellent post:From <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4119833&postcount=160" target="_blank">this post in Rodney Thompson Non Combat Encounters</a>So, right there, you have the game going in the EXACT opposite direction from video games.  You cannot do that in a video game.  You cannot have a player change the parameters of the game during play in a video game, but, 4e will encourage players to do exactly this.Now, whether or not you like this idea, that's up for debate.  That's fine.  That's a legitimate criticism in my mind.  But, to stand up and say that 4e is leaning towards more video gamey play is no more valid today than the criticism of 3e was.  In fact, it's actually less.</blockquote>

Verification