Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7929915" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Which is all well and good. We all have different preferences, and there’s no denying that 4e had a distinctly different feel than past editions of D&amp;D. It’s just that when you phrase it as “it didn’t feel like D&amp;D to me” that is implicitly invalidating to the opinions of the many folks to whom it did “feel like D&amp;D.” I think the conversation would go smoother if you would say “didn’t feel like what I want out of D&amp;D” or “didn’t feel like I expect D&amp;D to” or something along those lines. To your credit, “didn’t feel like D&amp;D to me is a marked improvement over “wasn’t D&amp;D,” but it still does set up some views of what D&amp;D feels like as more valid than others.I’m not asking you to do that. Your experience and preferences are valid, whatever your reasons for them may be. In fact, I think asking people to cite specific reasons 4e didn’t “feel like D&amp;D to them” just tends to invite argument. For one thing, people are generally not very good at identifying why they do or don’t like something. You could cite reasons you think might have contributed to the feel not being right for you and I could nitpick and point out why I don’t think those reasons make sense all day long, but at the end of the day it doesn’t get us anywhere. Feel is intensely subjective, trying to rationalize it and form objective arguments about it will only lead to trouble.I get it. I don’t share your assessments, but like I said, feel is subjective. If it didn’t feel like what you think of as D&amp;D, it didn’t feel that way, and that’s fine and understandable. Heck, I liked it precisely because it didn’t feel like what I had experienced playing 3.5. I only object to defining that feeling as “like D&amp;D” and the feeling 4e had as something not D&amp;D. They’re both D&amp;D, they’re just different styles of D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7929915, member: 6779196"] Which is all well and good. We all have different preferences, and there’s no denying that 4e had a distinctly different feel than past editions of D&D. It’s just that when you phrase it as “it didn’t feel like D&D to me” that is implicitly invalidating to the opinions of the many folks to whom it did “feel like D&D.” I think the conversation would go smoother if you would say “didn’t feel like what I want out of D&D” or “didn’t feel like I expect D&D to” or something along those lines. To your credit, “didn’t [I]feel like[/I] D&D [I]to me[/I] is a marked improvement over “wasn’t D&D,” but it still does set up some views of what D&D feels like as more valid than others. I’m not asking you to do that. Your experience and preferences are valid, whatever your reasons for them may be. In fact, I think asking people to cite specific reasons 4e didn’t “feel like D&D to them” just tends to invite argument. For one thing, people are generally not very good at identifying why they do or don’t like something. You could cite reasons you think might have contributed to the feel not being right for you and I could nitpick and point out why I don’t think those reasons make sense all day long, but at the end of the day it doesn’t get us anywhere. Feel is intensely subjective, trying to rationalize it and form objective arguments about it will only lead to trouble. I get it. I don’t share your assessments, but like I said, feel is subjective. If it didn’t feel like what you think of as D&D, it didn’t feel that way, and that’s fine and understandable. Heck, I liked it precisely because it didn’t feel like what I had experienced playing 3.5. I only object to defining that feeling as “like D&D” and the feeling 4e had as something not D&D. They’re both D&D, they’re just different styles of D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification