Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4089772" data-attributes="member: 2067">It's really the same "Don't knock 4e because 3e wasn't all that good either!" canard that we've seen in a thousand other threads, but it's weirdly conjoined with a "Realism means you die in one hit!" kind of strawman.To start with, the sins of one edition aren't an excuse for the sins of the next. That's ESPECIALLY true in 4e when cutting ties with the old is something they deliberately embraced. 4e wanted to fix problems with 3e, and if it failed to do that, it can be taken to task for that. Not that the criticism will always carry much weight, but it's still entirely a valid criticism. The criticsm that 4e won't have core rules for vampire tarot-reader PC's is a valid criticism, despite the fact that no edition has that, and that no edition has really ever TRIED to have that. It's not a very deep or wounding criticism, but it's there. Lacking "Realism" in the sense of "exactly like the real world" is a valid criticism for 4e. There's a thousand good reasons why 4e lacks that, but it does, and the fact that no edition has that is not a good reason in and of itself.It's like a two-year-old getting in trouble for swearing and having that two year old point at another kid and say "She said it, too!"It doesn't matter. Each edition is responsible for it's own successes and failures as a game. 4e won't be very much like the real world. Some interesting conversation might be achieved as to WHY that is, but "Shut up, 3e wasn't like the real world, either!" doesn't really add to the discussion much. Next, we have a mixup of realism/believability. From what I've seen, most people aren't really griping that 4e isn't like the real world. Instead, they're griping that it's not "realistic," or "believable." They say that certain demonstrated aspects of 4e (like strict silos or non-euclidian diagonals, or whatever) shaft that for them, whereas, since these elements weren't in 3e, the older edition does better. They're not saying it's perfectly realistic or even necessarily perfectly believable, but the internal consistency is enough for them, while 4e's is not. Since we all play a game about prancing elves in the lollipop kingdom, it's pretty safe to assume that no one wants a game strictly like the real world. Where the actual discussion lies is in how 4e makes abstractions and simplifications that aren't believable, and how 3e does at least nod at believability, and why people break at these various points (and perhaps how to reconcile it). Those differences are sometimes pretty subtle and minor, but they're obviously important to some people (and obviously not important to others). The OP doesn't really seem to understand the distinction, and then offers up an argument that doesn't really hold up, even if he did.So I don't really think the OP knows what he's ranting against.I mean, I guess that could be intentional? This is a humor thread, but I don't really see teh funney at all. Perhaps it went over my head?</blockquote>

Verification