Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 9071773" data-attributes="member: 22779">Yes, because, inevitably, someone posts something as a fact about the edition that is simply an artifact of how they approached the game and not the game itself.It's just like this AD&amp;D discussion.&nbsp; Yes, I don't think AD&amp;D was actually all that lethal.&nbsp; I found 3e to be far, far more lethal.In combat.But, again, so much of that is tied up in how we approached the game and our own idiosyncratic takes on the game.&nbsp; And I've been very clear that I recognize that and I've also tried to be clear about how my approach to AD&amp;D resulted in it being less lethal - primarily playing modules which results in a LOT of magical treasure which drastically increased the power of the PC's - often using pets/henchmen to pad out the party and then taking care of those pets/henchmen to make sure they stayed loyal (raise a couple of troopies from the dead and you REALLY improve morale - a generation approach to character generation and die rolling - even a different interpretation of the item saving rules.&nbsp; All these things I've been very clear about and can point to as reasons for my opinion.OTOH, we've got, &quot;4e is the most combat focused D&amp;D edition&quot;.&nbsp; When that's challenged by the actual text of the game, people don't say, &quot;well, it's because that's the way we played 4e (although, to be fair, that did come up later with [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER]'s point about where the needles are)&quot;&nbsp; They say it like it's an actual fact and that people who actually played the game are wrong.We can talk about 4e.&nbsp; If you find your opinions are often being challenged, perhaps it might be a good idea to show how you arrived at those opinions rather than insisting you are &quot;entitled&quot; to that opinion and we should always accept your opinions as facts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 9071773, member: 22779"] Yes, because, inevitably, someone posts something as a fact about the edition that is simply an artifact of how they approached the game and not the game itself. It's just like this AD&D discussion. Yes, I don't think AD&D was actually all that lethal. I found 3e to be far, far more lethal. In combat. But, again, so much of that is tied up in how we approached the game and our own idiosyncratic takes on the game. And I've been very clear that I recognize that and I've also tried to be clear about how my approach to AD&D resulted in it being less lethal - primarily playing modules which results in a LOT of magical treasure which drastically increased the power of the PC's - often using pets/henchmen to pad out the party and then taking care of those pets/henchmen to make sure they stayed loyal (raise a couple of troopies from the dead and you REALLY improve morale - a generation approach to character generation and die rolling - even a different interpretation of the item saving rules. All these things I've been very clear about and can point to as reasons for my opinion. OTOH, we've got, "4e is the most combat focused D&D edition". When that's challenged by the actual text of the game, people don't say, "well, it's because that's the way we played 4e (although, to be fair, that did come up later with [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER]'s point about where the needles are)" They say it like it's an actual fact and that people who actually played the game are wrong. We can talk about 4e. If you find your opinions are often being challenged, perhaps it might be a good idea to show how you arrived at those opinions rather than insisting you are "entitled" to that opinion and we should always accept your opinions as facts. [/QUOTE]

Verification