Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[Imaro]

If John Doe could say that, and leave it there, or perhaps elaborate on why he feels that way, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But Mr. Doe frequently can't. Instead of such elaboration, Mr. Doe apparently finds it a better use of his time to dish out the passive aggressive snipes on what anyone else enjoying 4E must be doing with it--since they are obviously aren't [roleplaying, playing D&D, having fun, telling a story, preventing dog and cat abuse, etc.].

Ok... I just had to read this again to make sure I wasn't imagining that you had actually whined earlier in the thread about passive aggresive snipes and then... opened up a volley of your own passive aggressiveness towards 3.5 players with no provocation...

...
And remember what topic we are in. If we go with what ByronD said earlier, then should not have all those people that got cheesed at WotC's comments simply have shrugged it off as an expression of preferences?

...That's roughly equivalent to WotC deciding that the 3E bard and ranger needed work, promising a fix, including the fluff and headers for the new versions in 3.5, promising to get you the new mechanics any day now, and then when 4E arrives, telling you just to switch to that if you want a working bard or ranger. (Not that the 3E bard and ranger were that bad.)

... But if you are counting on 4E fans to be as upset with 5E as 3E fans were with 4E, you are setting the bar awfully high ...

Kettle...pot. Oh, and just because you stick smilies on the end of a sentence doesn't make it any less snide, condescending or passive aggressive. Real talk.

 

[TheFindus]

I am quite shocked.

This thread has "edition war" written all over it.
The cause of it being an article that spells out "togetherness" in almost every single line. This is just mindboggling to me.

I think I will take a long break from ENWorld. Too much anger here.

See ya.

 

[Beginning of the End]

First, let me just say that the first thread where somebody said, "You're wrong about 4E having fundamentally different gameplay, and now that we've all agreed that you're wrong, can't we all just get along?" ended splendidly, and I'm really glad we're trying to do it again. I think it's really productive.

With that sarcasm out of my system, allow me to continue...

Hmm? Really? Here's the quote in question:

D&D is the moments in the game, the interplay within a gaming group, the memories formed that last forever. It’s intensely personal. It’s your experience as a group, the stories that you and your friends share to this day. No specific rule, no random opinion, no game concept from an R&D designer, no change to the game’s mechanics can alter that.

I put the relevant sentence in bold-faced.

Does he mean that changing the rules can't alter the moments in the game, the interplay within my gaming group, or the stories that we share? Because I can speak from personal experience and say, "Yes. It does."

(And, honestly, if you think that it doesn't, then you have no business being a game designer.)

When we look to the past, we learn that there are far more things that tie us together than tear us apart.

Ze game remains the same! Ze game remains the same! Ze game remains the same!

They protest too much.

In fact, they spend a lot of time claiming that a game that was designed to do fundamentally different things in fundamentally different ways is not actually different from its predecessors in any meaningful way If they'd spent as much time designing a game that actually captured the gameplay of D&D from 1974 to 2008 while fixing 3E's problems... ... Well, they probably wouldn't have split their customer base so severely.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Ok... I just had to read this again to make sure I wasn't imagining that you had actually whined earlier in the thread about passive aggresive snipes and then... opened up a volley of your own passive aggressiveness towards 3.5 players with no provocation...


Kettle...pot. Oh, and just because you stick smilies on the end of a sentence doesn't make it any less snide, condescending or passive aggressive. Real talk.

Everything I have said has been a direct reply to something brought up by someone else and statements made earlier in the topic. If I have come across as passive aggressive, I apologize, as that was not my intent.

My intent was to aggressively, no passive about it, call out people who couldn't let the ink dry on an internet post before calling out the OP and Mearls. If holding up the mirror to that behavior means that I have to get down in the ditch with the rest, well, I'm sorry for that too. If I were a better person, a more accomplished person, I could get the pot to look at itself long enough to quit trying to pre-empt the kettle. Sadly, I lack these skills. And as long as I'm apologizing, I'll go ahead an apologize for mixing my metaphors, too, as I'm sure that'll be the next tangent barked up.

The last paragraph was passive-aggressive. See the difference?

 

[Dannager]

I am quite shocked.

This thread has "edition war" written all over it.
The cause of it being an article that spells out "togetherness" in almost every single line. This is just mindboggling to me.

I think I will take a long break from ENWorld. Too much anger here.

See ya.

I'm not actually seeing much in the way of edition-based hostility in this thread. I think you may be mistaking fairly civil discussion for edition wars.

Oh, and when you take issue with a perceived divisiveness on a website, it strikes me that leaving a message that translates roughly to "Screw this website, I'm leaving," probably doesn't contribute much by way of solution. You probably would have been better off just not posting.

 

[Dannager]

Does he mean that changing the rules can't alter the moments in the game, the interplay within my gaming group, or the stories that we share? Because I can speak from personal experience and say, "Yes. It does."

(And, honestly, if you think that it doesn't, then you have no business being a game designer.)

No, I think he means that a changed rule, or an inflammatory opinion, or a design decision will not change the fact that you have shared memories of the games you've played in the past, and those memories are not altered by changes that might be made in the future. It's a unifying message.

I'll also add: If you get a group of random D&D players together and ask them to narrate one of their favorite adventures without making reference to rules, you will be largely unable to make a definitive determination as to which edition any given story "belongs" to.

 

[BryonD]

Except that quite a lot of the people who are 4e fans are 4e fans in part because they are not the type to get upset by the next iteration of a game, and are, in fact, excited by the idea of the game moving forward.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the 3rd Edition holdouts/Pathfinder players end up more upset with whatever 5th Edition turns out to be than the 4e players do.

I don't think that is true at all. I think you will find that the proportions are about equal in measure.

Certainly there are many that will. But, there are also plenty that are none to shy about their loathing of 3E and would be just as vocal if a 5E moved back in that direction.

That isn't intended as an "I know you are but what am I" or a one-upping. All I mean is they are both collections of human beings and you will see the same general distribution of reactions. Tolerance for change is easy to show when you LIKE the changes.

 

[BryonD]

I'll also add: If you get a group of random D&D players together and ask them to narrate one of their favorite adventures without making reference to rules, you will be largely unable to make a definitive determination as to which edition any given story "belongs" to.

If you get a group of random fantasy tabletop players together and ask them to narrate one of their favorite adventures without making reference to rules, you will be largely unable to make a definitive determination as to which game system any given story "belongs" to.

That doesn't make them all the same.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If you get a group of random fantasy tabletop players together and ask them to narrate one of their favorite adventures without making reference to rules, you will be largely unable to make a definitive determination as to which game system any given story "belongs" to.

That doesn't make them all the same.

True, assuming that they can so narrate. I have my doubts about their ability to do so, unless they are gifted speakers/writers, or have a wide variety of experiences with different game systems. Hints creep in. It is easier for the casual observer to see the D&D influence in Raymond Feist than it is to see the D&D influence in Steven Brust. This despite that the Feist version was probably more heavily house ruled during the play that informed those stories.

Whether that supports or undermines your point, I'm not at all sure.

 

[Imaro]

Everything I have said has been a direct reply to something brought up by someone else and statements made earlier in the topic. If I have come across as passive aggressive, I apologize, as that was not my intent.

My intent was to aggressively, no passive about it, call out people who couldn't let the ink dry on an internet post before calling out the OP and Mearls. If holding up the mirror to that behavior means that I have to get down in the ditch with the rest, well, I'm sorry for that too. If I were a better person, a more accomplished person, I could get the pot to look at itself long enough to quit trying to pre-empt the kettle. Sadly, I lack these skills. And as long as I'm apologizing, I'll go ahead an apologize for mixing my metaphors, too, as I'm sure that'll be the next tangent barked up.

The last paragraph was passive-aggressive. See the difference?

Waitaminute... so your perception is that people "called out" the OP and Mearls??? No one forced the OP to post this on a discussion forum, but in doing so he invites debate. It seems more that you're bitter because not everyone believes Mearl's sentiments are sincere... and they had the audacity to post what they think... on a discussion board. Seriously, get over it.

There's nothing clever or thought provoking about snide quips, especially when coated with the hypocrisy of feighned victimization... I mean seriously it seems you're the one who can't just accept that not everyone is going to agree with you. It also seems you're trying to provoke more hostility in the thread with potshots in some misguided attempt to enlighten all those you deem in need of it. I mean it must be lonely up there on that high horse where you need to teach us the errors of our ways...