Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 4617497" data-attributes="member: 2205">Whereas the notion that I find so intellectually dishonest that it's difficult for me to civilly express the absurdity of itr is the idea that an official book, published by Wizards of the Coast, full of rules all of which were added to the SRD is merely a &quot;Big Book of Optional &amp; Alternative Rules.&quot;Likewise, I find it intellectually dishonest to the point of parody to pretend like there's a difference between the 3e conceit of &quot;only the first three books are core; everything else is optional.&nbsp; No, really!&quot; and the 4e conceit of &quot;every single book we ever publish is Core.&nbsp; No, really!&quot;If I can be allowed to speak for Imaro, since I watched the genesis of this thread take place in a couple of other places, a bulleted list of things that someone liked about 4e over 3e was offered in which almost every single item was, actually, present and accounted for in official WotC publications in 3.5.&nbsp; I think there's some value in pointing out that 3.5 wasn't the broken, unusuble and inflexible monstrosity that many folks would have us believe, and that many of the &quot;innovations&quot; of 4e were present in D&amp;D long before 4e was released.That point really neither impugns 4e nor 3e.&nbsp; I don't see why it's a big deal that so many people are picking on Imaro's reasoning because many of this rules come from &quot;non-Core&quot; sources.&nbsp; The fiction of core vs. non-core has taken quite a drubbing with the changing position in 4e; as far as I'm concerned that officially puts the nail in the coffin of the idea that core vs. non-core is even a meaningful designation anymore.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 4617497, member: 2205"] Whereas the notion that I find so intellectually dishonest that it's difficult for me to civilly express the absurdity of itr is the idea that an official book, published by Wizards of the Coast, full of rules [I]all of which were added to the SRD[/I] is merely a "Big Book of Optional & Alternative Rules." Likewise, I find it intellectually dishonest to the point of parody to pretend like there's a difference between the 3e conceit of "only the first three books are core; everything else is optional. No, really!" and the 4e conceit of "every single book we ever publish is Core. No, really!" If I can be allowed to speak for Imaro, since I watched the genesis of this thread take place in a couple of other places, a bulleted list of things that someone liked about 4e over 3e was offered in which almost every single item was, actually, present and accounted for in official WotC publications in 3.5. I think there's some value in pointing out that 3.5 wasn't the broken, unusuble and inflexible monstrosity that many folks would have us believe, and that many of the "innovations" of 4e were present in D&D long before 4e was released. That point really neither impugns 4e nor 3e. I don't see why it's a big deal that so many people are picking on Imaro's reasoning because many of this rules come from "non-Core" sources. The fiction of core vs. non-core has taken quite a drubbing with the changing position in 4e; as far as I'm concerned that officially puts the nail in the coffin of the idea that core vs. non-core is even a meaningful designation anymore. [/QUOTE]

Verification