Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Azgulor" data-source="post: 5470089" data-attributes="member: 14291">Firstly, if I'm responding to something YOU'VE written, I'll quote you.That said, in post #13 of this thread there's this (emphasis added):&quot;Wow, tough crowd - it is as if people want there to be continued conflict, continued edition warring.I would ask if anyone can cite examples of games that continue to support older editions? I am not saying that WotC shouldn't have, say, a section of Dragon called &quot;3.5 Corner&quot; or &quot;Retro Arcana&quot; but I do think it is a tad ridiculous for them to pour resources into an older version of the game, at least to the extent that some seem to want.I mean,it is time to accept that 4E is the current, supported version of the game.&quot;Many of your threads are absolutely discussion starters.&nbsp; However, they are often couched in the vein of &quot;4e acceptance&quot;.&nbsp; I don't know if that's intentional or not, and maybe I'm totally off base -- it's the impression I'm left with when reading some of your posts.&nbsp; Until your reply, I hadn't given it much thought as I wasn't responding directly to something you stated.Then there's the add-on comments &amp; posts of &quot;Haters will hate&quot;, &quot;martyrs&quot;, etc. added by others along with the claims that ENWorld would be a happy place if anyone who doesn't play 4e would just be civil.&nbsp; I get tired of the &quot;They, and only they, are keeping the Edition War going,&quot; and &quot;4e fans are never the aggressor/initiator/less civil faction&quot;.&nbsp; FWIW, I see name-calling being thrown around far more frequently from the pro-4e side of the aisle (see hater, martyr, etc. in this thread).If you're for &quot;Edition Neutrality&quot; then we're on the same page.&nbsp; I've stated on several occasions that in my view, both sides won -- as in they have a published and supported game to play.However, for a &quot;shared D&amp;D experience&quot;, I think mechanics DO matter.&nbsp; And while 4e doesn't suit my tastes, it is D&amp;D.&nbsp; However, that does not mean that I have to accept a stance of &quot;mechanics don't matter&quot;.&nbsp; It's a game -- the rules DO matter, because the rules affect the gameplay.&nbsp; Soccer and Hockey share some common rules but I'd argue that the play experience of each is very different.&nbsp; Basketball, baseball, football - different planets in the universe of &quot;sports&quot;.IMO, the shared experience where you &amp; Mr. Mearls are going to find more common ground is the Tabletop RPG Experience, rather than the D&amp;D experience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Azgulor, post: 5470089, member: 14291"] Firstly, if I'm responding to something YOU'VE written, I'll quote you. That said, in post #13 of this thread there's this (emphasis added): [I]"Wow, tough crowd - [B][U]it is as if people want there to be continued conflict, continued edition warring[/U][/B]. I would ask if anyone can cite examples of games that continue to support older editions? I am not saying that WotC shouldn't have, say, a section of Dragon called "3.5 Corner" or "Retro Arcana" but I do think it is a tad ridiculous for them to pour resources into an older version of the game, at least to the extent that some seem to want. I mean,[B][U]it is time to accept that 4E is the current, supported version of the game[/U][/B]."[/I] Many of your threads are absolutely discussion starters. However, they are often couched in the vein of "4e acceptance". I don't know if that's intentional or not, and maybe I'm totally off base -- it's the impression I'm left with when reading some of your posts. Until your reply, I hadn't given it much thought as I wasn't responding directly to something you stated. Then there's the add-on comments & posts of "Haters will hate", "martyrs", etc. added by others along with the claims that ENWorld would be a happy place if anyone who doesn't play 4e would just be civil. I get tired of the "They, and only they, are keeping the Edition War going," and "4e fans are never the aggressor/initiator/less civil faction". FWIW, I see name-calling being thrown around far more frequently from the pro-4e side of the aisle (see hater, martyr, etc. in this thread). If you're for "Edition Neutrality" then we're on the same page. I've stated on several occasions that in my view, both sides won -- as in they have a published and supported game to play. However, for a "shared D&D experience", I think mechanics DO matter. And while 4e doesn't suit my tastes, it is D&D. However, that does not mean that I have to accept a stance of "mechanics don't matter". It's a game -- the rules DO matter, because the rules affect the gameplay. Soccer and Hockey share some common rules but I'd argue that the play experience of each is very different. Basketball, baseball, football - different planets in the universe of "sports". IMO, the shared experience where you & Mr. Mearls are going to find more common ground is the Tabletop RPG Experience, rather than the D&D experience. [/QUOTE]

Verification