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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannager" data-source="post: 5570619" data-attributes="member: 73683">No, it seems to just be an observation. An observation that is supported by the content of your posts in this thread. If you believe that this observation is in error, you are free to attempt to explain away the content of your posts.Apologizing on behalf of someone else for something they ought not to feel any remorse over is a very arrogant, very combative approach to a conversation that really doesn't have any place here.The same applies here.And here.To boot, you have, in the sentence above, responded to rational criticism with a ridicule that attempts to make it appear irrational. Which is, word for word, what you just tried to take Balesir to task for doing.A sincere apology is a tacit admission of some level of responsibility. You can have it one way or the other.This is true of you, apparently. It is not true of others. The five year-old who brings dolls to her make-believe tea party finds that a physical representation of the fictional construct she has created helps to enhance her experience - one that could be considered entirely roleplaying.This is misrepresentation, and it is misrepresentation that I find difficult to believe is unintentional. Those who play and enjoy 4e do so because the rules provide a framework which facilitates the fiction. Nowhere in the game's rules is it stated or implied that if the fiction and rules are in conflict, the rules should win. In fact, the designers have stated on multiple occasions that the rules ought to take a back seat or be glossed over in favor of the fiction when they don't mesh.You are confusing an unresolvable conflict between the rules and fiction (something that rarely occurs) with an unwillingness to reconcile the rules and fiction. Fix the latter problem, and you will find that the former magically disappears.This is not a given, but let's accept it for the sake of argument.The statement of a character's action is rarely, if ever, decoupled from what actually takes place. If it is decoupled, it is because the DM and players are allowing that to occur rather than reconciling the two.What ruins this argument for you, of course, is that D&D damage has been abstract for a long, long time. A character can miss with a literal attack (a swing of the sword) and still deal mechanical damage, because that damage represents things like battle fatigue, will to fight, bruises from rough dodges, and glancing blows, as well as any potential physical injuries.So it's never "really" been damage. You're playing D&D of some sort, which means you've already bought into the idea that damage is abstract. I can't imagine why you would try to lay this at 4e's feet as if it were a problem that it deserves the blame for, unless this was just willful ignorance on your part.Yep, it's definitely prone now.So you agree that having a common, accepted definition is important to a discussion! Good to hear!It does if you've decided to define "red" as meaning "blue".You're right! But it does indicate that they probably need to do a better job at communicating their problem.Yes, the appropriate response to someone highlighting valid criticisms of your position is to say "You just don't get it!" Making an effort to communicate better is just more effort than it's worth, really.This is, I believe, wildly wishful thinking on your part. If you do not enjoy 4e, chances are you will not enjoy 5e. The design direction they took in developing 4e was an intelligent one, and they will likely continue to move in that general direction with the development of any subsequent iteration of the game.But if I'm proven wrong, here, I'll still play 5e.</blockquote>

Verification