Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Primal" data-source="post: 4065296" data-attributes="member: 30678">Maybe, although I'd hardly call it &quot;unique&quot;. What makes you think my comments are &quot;shrill and inapprobriate&quot;? Maybe I've interpreted the Dungeoncraft and 'Points of Light' articles in a different light than most people, but to me it seems that this concept is about:1) The world consists of tiny, flickering Points of Light among a vast sea of Darkness2) It's up to the PCs (the protagonists) to stop the world from falling into oblivion3) The setting should remain a bit vague and filled with undetailed spot to allow you to &quot;drop things out of the books&quot; anywhere4) It's okay to be a lazy DM, as 4E is not about details or creativity as such -- it's about the PCs and more &quot;fun&quot;Anyway, that's how I see it. Then again, I'm not a native speaker, so some nuances might have escaped me. Whether that's how things will be represented in &quot;official&quot; lore -- maybe, or maybe not. In any case, although the basic premise is pretty narrow, there's naturally a lot of room for individual DMs to interpret or rewrite stuff to fit their own campaign settings better. I don't have a problem with that.However, I (both as a player and DM) like about details and at least *some* degree of realism and internal consistency in the setting. Is it inapprobriate or &quot;wrong&quot;, if everyone (in my group) thinks a vivid and believable setting is more &quot;fun&quot; than a bunch of new and cool abilities? As for Hong -- has he really posted any arguments of substance or relevance on this thread? I have failed to notice. I think he's mostly interested in trolling. Or maybe it's about him being (evidently) in the &quot;pro-4E&quot; camp and me being on the other side of the fence (i.e. being highly critical of 4E/WoTC)? You see, I think it's rather sad that even reasonable people lose all interest in civil discussion to make personal attacks at the &quot;enemy&quot; (and IMHO both &quot;sides&quot; are equally guilty of this) -- even when you'd under &quot;normal&quot; circumstances agree with them or would present intelligent counter-arguments that would be constructive and beneficial to the discussion. And the saddest thing, in my opinion, is that this has driven some people to pick sides they wouldn't have -- e.g. you might have decided to jump into the &quot;pro-4E&quot; camp just because some &quot;Anti-4E&quot; people resorted to personal insults after you happened to post some positive comments about the latest article. And vice versa. And here's the thing: I don't think either &quot;side&quot; really represents any sort of &quot;majority&quot; among the gamers, although both like to claim so. In the end, it's the &quot;fence-sitters&quot; (and potential new customers) who shall determine the fate of D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Primal, post: 4065296, member: 30678"] Maybe, although I'd hardly call it "unique". What makes you think my comments are "shrill and inapprobriate"? Maybe I've interpreted the Dungeoncraft and 'Points of Light' articles in a different light than most people, but to me it seems that this concept is about: 1) The world consists of tiny, flickering Points of Light among a vast sea of Darkness 2) It's up to the PCs (the protagonists) to stop the world from falling into oblivion 3) The setting should remain a bit vague and filled with undetailed spot to allow you to "drop things out of the books" anywhere 4) It's okay to be a lazy DM, as 4E is not about details or creativity as such -- it's about the PCs and more "fun" Anyway, that's how I see it. Then again, I'm not a native speaker, so some nuances might have escaped me. Whether that's how things will be represented in "official" lore -- maybe, or maybe not. In any case, although the basic premise is pretty narrow, there's naturally a lot of room for individual DMs to interpret or rewrite stuff to fit their own campaign settings better. I don't have a problem with that. However, I (both as a player and DM) like about details and at least *some* degree of realism and internal consistency in the setting. Is it inapprobriate or "wrong", if everyone (in my group) thinks a vivid and believable setting is more "fun" than a bunch of new and cool abilities? As for Hong -- has he really posted any arguments of substance or relevance on this thread? I have failed to notice. I think he's mostly interested in trolling. Or maybe it's about him being (evidently) in the "pro-4E" camp and me being on the other side of the fence (i.e. being highly critical of 4E/WoTC)? You see, I think it's rather sad that even reasonable people lose all interest in civil discussion to make personal attacks at the "enemy" (and IMHO both "sides" are equally guilty of this) -- even when you'd under "normal" circumstances agree with them or would present intelligent counter-arguments that would be constructive and beneficial to the discussion. And the saddest thing, in my opinion, is that this has driven some people to pick sides they wouldn't have -- e.g. you might have decided to jump into the "pro-4E" camp just because some "Anti-4E" people resorted to personal insults after you happened to post some positive comments about the latest article. And vice versa. And here's the thing: I don't think either "side" really represents any sort of "majority" among the gamers, although both like to claim so. In the end, it's the "fence-sitters" (and potential new customers) who shall determine the fate of D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification