Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Realism! Versamilitude! Other Words!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4092090" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>This appears to be speculating on the motives of a poster, rather than on the content of the post. You seem to be claiming that when someone doesn't like a change that 4e is making that, a lot of the time it is habit, nostalgia, monetary worries, or general unwelcome change.</p><p></p><p>You can't read minds, internet posts are a poor place to analyze someone's internal thought process, and speculating on the motives of other posters rather than on the content of their post is exceptionally insulting to the poster. </p><p></p><p>If you stick to what was said rather than trying to find out why they said it, the conversation can be a little more constructive.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What else they talk about doesn't really come to bear on the discussion about 4e's lack of believability for them. Addressing the specific matter of 4e's believability (or lack thereof) is more constructive. Otherwise, you're just speculating on motives. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually, it's not. It just derails conversation into talk about 3e, rather than talk about 4e. We can safely assume that if they think 3e was better, that they think 3e was better, because they think 3e was better. Questioning that assumption is pretty insulting, and is ultimately useless because they think that 3e was better.</p><p></p><p>The reasons 4e departs from the way 3e did things is useful. Mentioning why 4e does things this way instead is useful. Showing how the 4e rule helps more than it hinders is useful.</p><p></p><p>Telling them that 3e was bad, too, and that they're just afraid of change, are set in their ways, are blinded by nostalgia, or are too worried about money to make a fair judgement on 4e is completely useless, and fairly insulting.</p><p></p><p>FWIW, the OP isn't actually attributing motives to people, but saying that 3e was bad, too, is STILL useless in the discussion about 4e's changes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 4092090, member: 2067"] This appears to be speculating on the motives of a poster, rather than on the content of the post. You seem to be claiming that when someone doesn't like a change that 4e is making that, a lot of the time it is habit, nostalgia, monetary worries, or general unwelcome change. You can't read minds, internet posts are a poor place to analyze someone's internal thought process, and speculating on the motives of other posters rather than on the content of their post is exceptionally insulting to the poster. If you stick to what was said rather than trying to find out why they said it, the conversation can be a little more constructive. What else they talk about doesn't really come to bear on the discussion about 4e's lack of believability for them. Addressing the specific matter of 4e's believability (or lack thereof) is more constructive. Otherwise, you're just speculating on motives. Actually, it's not. It just derails conversation into talk about 3e, rather than talk about 4e. We can safely assume that if they think 3e was better, that they think 3e was better, because they think 3e was better. Questioning that assumption is pretty insulting, and is ultimately useless because they think that 3e was better. The reasons 4e departs from the way 3e did things is useful. Mentioning why 4e does things this way instead is useful. Showing how the 4e rule helps more than it hinders is useful. Telling them that 3e was bad, too, and that they're just afraid of change, are set in their ways, are blinded by nostalgia, or are too worried about money to make a fair judgement on 4e is completely useless, and fairly insulting. FWIW, the OP isn't actually attributing motives to people, but saying that 3e was bad, too, is STILL useless in the discussion about 4e's changes. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Realism! Versamilitude! Other Words!
Top