Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5618732" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I hear many things about 3e, too, though. I rarely hear insults against 2e or other previous editions. I think this is due to the community split during the 3e -> 4e transitional period.But I've heard how 3e is a horrible game that makes certain things worthless to play. Fighters are garbage that nobody can meaningfully play, but wizards are so good that you can't role play them without breaking the game. Etc.This is about what mileage people have gotten out of the games, and their preferences. Trying to negate how some people feel -such as my example swipes against 3e- isn't going to work, because that's how it played out at their table.I think this has to do with role play support outside of combat, as well as the focus on miniatures. To my knowledge, there wasn't an edition yet that mandated the use of miniatures. I know I played 3e for a little over 5 years without ever using them. I'm not sure I could do that in 4e with forced movement involved.Additionally, 2e had non-combat proficiencies, and 3e had narrow skills. I'm kind of hazy on other tools previous editions had, but I'm under the impression that as the game progressed, non-combat tools had historically increased in depth (I may be wrong on this, though). If that's the case, then people may have felt that 4e was a big step backwards in this department. And, seeing as how people were used to non-combat support, I can understand them seeing the lack of several obvious tools (Craft and Profession spring to mind) coupled with the focus on the board, and come to the conclusion that you have come to.This isn't to say that they're objectively correct. However, I know that as someone who does not use miniatures, and someone who habitually uses skills like Crafts, Professions, or Performs, I was very turned off by the presentation of the game.Then there's the step towards "gamist" play. I do admit D&D has always had it, but the fact that it was embraced as strongly as it was might support the feeling that those who play the game are indeed playing something like a board game. If I have rules that seem to dictate how things are in a  board game that are purely for the game play's benefit, I don't mind if it doesn't address the "fluff" of the game. On the other hand, when this is introduced into an RPG, I can understand people making that connection.When compared to 3e, few of these are significant issues. So, I'd submit the possibility that while some people had RP problems with 3e, more people had RP problems with 4e, and thus the split, and the higher number of claims of such a hard time dealing with 4e.It's not malicious, inherently, to state how you feel. The community has different reactions to different editions, as prominently shown by the reception of 3e compared to 4e. Yes, 3e had its detractors, but not to the degree that 4e did, and I believe that is in part because of the reasons outlined above. To some, those changes "make it more like a board game, and less like a role playing game."And you know what? They're not wrong to feel that way. You're not wrong to disagree with them. Both of you are wrong the moment you try to negate that feeling.I understand the irritation, but, again, I don't think it's malicious. There are definitely malicious 3e warriors, don't get me wrong. But I see more malicious posting from the other side. I see more "your argument doesn't matter" and "your feelings don't matter" and "your opinion isn't correct" and "your view of what makes an enjoyable game is objectively wrong" coming from 4e posters than from 3e posters. I see that in this thread, and in other threads.The fact that "Nineball" is back isn't helping that view any, though. He is by no means alone, though. Just as there are certain posters in support of 3e who state "4e is not D&D" with objective certainty and are wrong, so too are the 4e supporters who try to negate the feelings and opinions of those who dislike their favored edition.Like I said, I do get that you're frustrated by people saying "4e isn't a RPG" since it's demonstrably false. That attack on it is about as valid as saying "3e is for powergamers" to me. I mean, some people might experience either one, but that doesn't make it true for everyone, and absolute statements that draw from purely personal experience with such subjective material should be avoided, in my opinion.And, like I said in the quote you responded to, it comes down to preference. Your mileage has varied. It really is that simple.As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification