OK, we're gettng a little annoyed here!

lkj

Hero
Terramotus said:
For example, discussion would be taking the information about Dragonborn and speculating about how they are created from the information leaked and whether they fill the niche of the strong PC race instead of Half-Orcs in the new edition.

Opinion would be whether or not you like Dragonborn over the Half-Orcs and whether or not you will allow them in your game.

I can't believe I'm posting in this thread, as I usually ignore all the meta talk. But heck in the past I rarely posted at all. I've proudly been lurking since early 3E (Eric's site)

I don't know if splitting the board would really be a good idea or not. I'm sure there are repercussions I wouldn't guess at or that it might end up being unfair or annoy more people than help, etc. etc. I'll leave that to the mods.

But my two cents is this: The split wouldn't really be 'Opinion' vs. 'Discussion', not exactly-- since discussion will inevitably involve some opinions. But the example that Terramotus describes works pretty well for me.

There's two things, in general, to talk about with regard to the info we are getting about 4e:

There's Speculation-- Here's what WotC has told us. Let's speculate about what that might mean, what form in might take, how it might suggest other rules. What does this mean about a potential design philosophy, etc. One can certainly discuss these things without having or giving a strong opinion about whether it's good idea or not. We can even argue heatedly about what we think the final product will look like without getting into whether we think it sucks or not.

There's Judgement-- Do I like what WotC has told us? Do I like what it might mean? Do I like what I'm speculating it means? What should WotC do about it?

As it happens, I much prefer the first. That's me.

I think it's perfectly valid to not like what you are seeing, form an opinion about it, and want to express that opinion. I think it's valid to argue with that opinion and say that it's a misinterpretation or based on too little info. Forming judgments is the prerogative of the poster. (It's just how that opinion is stated and whether it involves rudeness to other posters. I certainly don't think you have to personally respect the opinion-- re: Wulf's argument-- but in the context of ENWorld I don't think it has much value to rudely point out just how much you don't respect it. What's the point?<-- just my opinion).

At any rate, making judgments might be cathartic or fun or help you have a discussion. Just not my thing when it comes to D&D. And I find that I'm having a lot less fun reading these boards lately because I'm wading through piles of posts of people arguing with each other about their personal judgments. And all I really want to see is 1) the info and 2) the fun speculation about that info from the really smart group of people who frequent these boards.
I suspect with regard to #2 that we'll find out we were way off base most of the time, but that's part of the fun as well.

So, yes, if there were a way to separate the speculation from the judgments I'd love it. Maybe you don't need a board split. Maybe just a tag for the threads. I already avoid all threads that are titled in a way that obviously won't interest me ("Going to 4E", "Not going to 4E", etc.). But that doesn't save me from having to wade through the pointless (in my opinion) arguments about whether this change sucks or rocks that seem to permeate most threads now. It kind of makes me want to hang out less. I'm posting more often lately, but some of that is just trying to see if I can turn a discussion to an arena of more interest to me. Chances are I'll give up on that eventually. I'm just not as passionate as the 'haters' and 'lovers' about the whole thing. But if we could separate the type of discussion, I think that would be great. And yes, I realize there are gray areas. But I'm perfectly happy with letting the wonderful moderators around here draw whatever lines they think best.

Well, blah, blah. I've rambled enough. I don't know if my comments are worth much. I hope they are. I've really liked hanging out here. I'd love to continue to like it.

Cheers,
AD
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Charwoman Gene

Adventurer
Plane Sailing said:
Do you remember?

I Copied this off of an archived post I found on Google

The Best two phrases are "If you a shovel have" and "Of the charwoman gene pursued"


-------------

Eric Noah once translated his front page into German and back, just for a laugh...

The "Charwoman Gene" is what translates back from "Chargen" referring to the Character Generator included in first print D&D PH's.


Message: (if you a shovel have, please fill email I or out the form for feedback)

May 30, 2000

Liquid on the boards:

Scott Mathews of the liquid maintenance communicated somewhat goodies more rueber on the board message of the software É. Feel free to fall by message the board and to divide your thoughts or questions. I just thought that I would throw a line and a saying hello to drop and from any info. over the charwoman gene.

1. Built up-to-date for the PC Mackanal still into consideration by Wizards up. No channel Linux is expected.

2. Dispatched with the August output kite and the manual of the player, which are suitable here naturally out at GENE of this year Con. Internally at the liquid, we call this version of the charwoman gene the "demo version" it are a designation, which I really regret, because it is misleading a little (you see down).

3. In the demo version you can any category structure and print, which is found in the manual of the player. Any running, any adjustment. That is, it is completely functional. They can still structure not prestige categories or monster categories, or adapt you your character page. This adding for the full "version" are regarded, which dispatches with collecting main aids. That and the thousands adding, which we hear by the boards.

4. Of the charwoman gene pursued, one which certified characters consists. E.G. if you output all ability points, which are assigned to you, then ramp down its INTERNAL (this ramp down also over sake DM sought out), then is thrown the character in errors, (it to have had more ability points output, than it to your character have assigned). They can protect a character in the error, but you cannot print it.

5. Changing cube role methods not in demo supported, but will become in the collecting main aids to be.
 


Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Out of curiosity, I translated part of today's front page to german, and then back, using Google.

Here are some of the funnier bits:

Cleric: ...And the heads of state and government are in a position to grant an increase to this capability . In summary, clerics will no longer be asked to heal, as they used to, and can take part in battles. It is also said that clerics are not as strong compared to the other classes, as they 3E, and that the summons were magic spell from their lists (probably in a later band).

So Clerics need to seek out a head of state and government to improve their healing, and will get a boost from bards perhaps since they must summon a band later to do it.

Wizards: schools of magic are gone, replaced by Priority (ball, personnel, magic wand, with more to come in later books possibly). The priorities include ground ball and retaliation effects and the perception that staves ranged radiation, bars and long-distance calls and defense. Besides the magic, wizards will also have rituals, the creation of items. Meta Magic benefits are gone when magic can still be increased by Wizard powers and other benefits. In addition, because characters can buy any kind of services they want, it is mentioned that one of a magician in a 3E style Warmage or Dusk Blade through the purchase of weapons, armor and attack melee benefits, as 4E Wizards no longer suffer arcane spell failure in the arms.

Wow, Wizards seem to play kick ball, blast things with radiation, and make a lot of calls on their staff-shaped cell phones (assuming they have the bars for the call). And they don't have arcane spell failure, but only for their arms. The rest of their bodies, however, will continue to suffer spell failure.

Warlord: As described above, but also an example of a warlord power called "Feather Me Yon Oaf!" (You often use humorous titles such as stand-ins until the real one). When the warlord uses this ability, his allies will receive an immediate action to a rocket weapon and shoot the warlord designated target.

Nice! A rocket weapon, but only at the designated Warlord target. Seems kinda like a specialized situational attack!

:lol:
 

Zurai

First Post
On topic...

I found that my more destructive urges disappeared almost completely at the same time I realized I could "shrink" the RPG Forums header so that I had to very specifically go to the 4E forum to see any threads about 4E. Out of sight, out of mind, as they say. Since I was worried about leaving my PbP games in the lurch if I got out of hand, that was a big relief to me.

For the record, if anyone else wants to try it, if you go to the main forum listing (where it shows all the forums and sub-forums grouped by header) there's a tiiiiiiny little grey box to the far right of each main forum. If you click that, it shrinks the entire grouping to just the title of the main forum (RPG Forums, in this case).
 

Plane Sailing

Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Zurai said:
For the record, if anyone else wants to try it, if you go to the main forum listing (where it shows all the forums and sub-forums grouped by header) there's a tiiiiiiny little grey box to the far right of each main forum. If you click that, it shrinks the entire grouping to just the title of the main forum (RPG Forums, in this case).

Funny, I never noticed that!

(I get to spend time around all the forums of course, so I can't use it myself, but I bet others might find this handy)
 

Riley

Legend
lkj said:
There's Speculation-- Here's what WotC has told us. Let's speculate about what that might mean, what form in might take, how it might suggest other rules. What does this mean about a potential design philosophy, etc. One can certainly discuss these things without having or giving a strong opinion about whether it's good idea or not. We can even argue heatedly about what we think the final product will look like without getting into whether we think it sucks or not.

There's Judgement-- Do I like what WotC has told us? Do I like what it might mean? Do I like what I'm speculating it means? What should WotC do about it?

I would really like to have threads and/or a subsection dedicated to "Speculation," where "Judgement" for good or ill would not be welcome. It wouldn't be a Pro-4e section, and it wouldn't be an Anti-4e section - it would be a "What will it be?" section.

Some very clever people have made some very clever observations on 4e, based on the clues we have. But most of the threads containing such clues and thoughts have promptly been buried in a pile of 'yea' and 'nay' posts.

There would still be room for us to have our rants and arguments elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

Roland55

First Post
Riley said:
I would really like to have threads and/or a subsection dedicated to "Speculation," where "Judgement" for good or ill would not be welcome. It wouldn't be a Pro-4e section, and it wouldn't be an Anti-4e section - it would be a "What will it be?" section.

Some very clever people have made some very clever observations on 4e, based on the clues we have. But most of the threads containing such clues and thoughts have promptly been buried in a pile of 'yea' and 'nay' posts.

There would still be room for us to have our rants and arguments elsewhere.

I hardly ever post. I just lurk.

But I'll come out for this idea! :cool:

I come here to learn, not to argue. And, most especially, not to assassinate the characters (or even the opinions) of others.
 

ThirdWizard

First Post
I notice topics often devolve into arguments over something that isn't really the point of the thread. The classic is Golden Wyvern Adept taking over random threads, but there are other threads that have fallen way off the topic of the thread though I won't name names. That's usually fine, except there are threads specifically on these topics, and arguments bleeding over is extremely annoying. I'd like it if we had these topics confined to only threads directly concerning them so that we could talk about other things. This is really starting to get under my skin, and so far I've kept myself from commenting, but that's kind of the opposite of what I want to be dong here.
 

Is there any way to creat a thread that is locked out from posters to just ONLY list confirmed or highly likely 4e news?


Much of the problem is getting clear uninterrupted information without all the varying opinions involved. For those on the fence or climbing onto the fence (like myself) this may be very useful.

Thankyou and may the dieties bless you for dealing with this ... chaos.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top