Rebutting a fallacy: why I await 5e (without holding my breath)

[Vegepygmy]

Not to mention many many many many other problems that again, damage people's fun. , wizards at low level? One spell, then a crossbow. You can tell your little fairy tales about how that 'makes up for' them being stronger later, but that's garbage design that doesn't work in play.

Every time I see this particular argument being made, I think of the wizard I played in Shackled City. Magnus (a human) took Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot at 1st level. At low levels, he used his crossbow about ten times as often as he cast a spell. He positioned himself well, focused on targets who had at least some chance of being dropped by a crossbow bolt (usually because they'd already been hit by someone else), and quickly developed an extremely lethal reputation. A running joke was calling him "Magnus the [insert appropriate creature] Slayer" whenever he made the killing shot on yet another opponent.

Now, you can call it a "fairy tale" if you want, but everyone who played in that campaign remembers Magnus (for that and several other reasons), and I don't recall ever once feeling like he was less fun to play at low levels than he was at high.

Personally, I tried 4e for several months, and had much less fun than I did playing 3e with its "garbage design." YMMV.

 

[SoldierBlue]

Wow. Very eloquent. It takes a truly great writer to distill a complex thought into such clean English. These are my thoughts exactly, but I was too clumsy to articulate them like this...

 

[catastrophic]

The solution is "just because it's your opinion doesn't make it right."

Actually that's not a solution at all, that's just a cop-out people use when they don't want to seriously discuss design in any concrete terms, but still want to bash their least favorite edition of D&D.

Here's an example. Say I decide that the design of 3e is inherently supportive of fascism. Why?

Well the monocultural and supremacist qualities of the 'adventurer' caste, the overt racist themes, the role of wealth in the creation of military might, the inherent argument for systemic indoctrination present in the alignment system, and the doctrine of total war as embodied by the fireball spell.

Now, you might disagree with this, but that's just your opinion. My opinon is that 3e totally supports fascism, and argues that it is the only viable form of real-world government, and to be honest i'm a little. . suspicious of the designers of 3e, and their role in this. I mean, 3e is pretty clear pro-fachist propaganda. . in my opinion.

And i'm going to turn up in every thread about 3e, and many threads which have nothing to do with 3e, and tout my theory. But of course, it's just my opinion. And a bunch of other people do the same. . against, just their 'O'.

Now, are you allowed to disagree with me? Of course- but that's just your opinion, nothing more. I can ignore every argument you make, even cases when my assertions are clearly testable (like my claims that monte cook spent several decades cryogenically frozen at the south pole after his final ww2-era battle with captain america), I can just say that it's your opinion, because really, who can say for sure? Have you ever even been to the south pole?

You can't reach a conclusion in your debate with me, because that's just your opinion. You can't summarise the debate to other people, unless you qualify that summary with multiple "IMO YMMV" weasel-words, and note that your opinion is 'nothing'- nothing but an opinion, but the important thing is, it's nothing.

You can't ask the mods for me and my increasingly obnoxious friends to be silenced, because no mattter how bizzare our assesment, it's our opinion, and opinions are sacred and cannot be wrong.

And we'll keep banging on year after year, on forums, comments pages, reviews, and more, saying a bunch of stuff that doesn't make any sense, making rather nasty veiled statements about the motives and mindsets of fellow fans who happen to work in the industry, and we'll do it all with pride, under the mighty banner of 'IMO'.

 

[Dunnagin]

There is also an option to agree to disagree... or perhaps better put, freedom of opinion without suppression.

Such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

Sometimes one side or another may wish these did not exist... but no matter how irksome some people may be... they are still quite important.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

The "4e isn't D&D" dispute going on in this thread is akin to the "today's music isn't as good as the music back when I was younger" statement I hear from a lot of my contemporaries. As others smarter than me have said, it is an unlikely coincidence that what you grew up listening to (or playing) just so happens to be the truest expression of music (or D&D). It's simply something you aren't familiar with and you don't like it (paraphrased from Stephen Fry).

4e still reminds me more of the very earliest games of D&D I played, back in the late 70s/early 80s, than anything since. Doesn't make it superior or inferior to anything else.

 

[dagger]

We have old timers playing 4e. We have people who've never liked dnd playing it. And we have a shitload of people who used to play 3e, and are damn glad to see the back of it. 4e is well designed and deserved credit for that. Discussion of it should not be dominated with the outrage of people who rejected it before they even saw it, because frankly? You have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, at least you admit it.

Played it for almost two years then my group of newbies and old timers dropped it because we recognized bad design. But keep fighting the battle soldier, your opinion (because it is not fact) of 4e carries so much value.

 

[catastrophic]

If you drop 4e after two years and go back to a previous edition, you're not making a decision based on design. If you went to another system, that I could see as a legitimate design informed by design, but the idea that 3e or another edition is better designed is just a joke, including arguments about it's suitability for some vague, contradictory subgenre.

There is also an option to agree to disagree... or perhaps better put, freedom of opinion without suppression.

There's a difference between the protection freedom of speech, and the endorsement of organised misinformation. One is a right, the other infringes on that self-same right.

 

[billd91]

The "4e isn't D&D" dispute going on in this thread is akin to the "today's music isn't as good as the music back when I was younger" statement I hear from a lot of my contemporaries. As others smarter than me have said, it is an unlikely coincidence that what you grew up listening to (or playing) just so happens to be the truest expression of music (or D&D). It's simply something you aren't familiar with and you don't like it (paraphrased from Stephen Fry).

I'd quibble over the metaphor. It's more like disputing whether, say, Hootie and the Blowfish are an example of southern rock. They're from the deep south, but they really don't have the same sort of style as the Allman Brothers Band or Lynyrn Skynyrd. Some people, however, may emphasize particular elements of the style that are more in common, others more dissimilar, based on personal preferences and what they judge to be the more important criteria in musical classification.
It's not a question of overall quality, it's a question of qualities that put the game into a different sort of classification.

 

[billd91]

If you drop 4e after two years and go back to a previous edition, you're not making a decision based on design. If you went to another system, that I could see as a legitimate design informed by design, but the idea that 3e or another edition is better designed is just a joke, including arguments about it's suitability for some vague, contradictory subgenre.

Ultimately, the question will be "Is the current design performing the way WotC wants it to perform?" If they way they want it to perform is to capture or maintain marketshare, then it may well be that 3e performed better than 4e. Depends on the stats WotC is keeping and exactly how they want 4e to perform. Whether or not it is enjoyed more by 4e fans like yourself may be irrelevant. Whether or not it is better balanced for certain types of games may be irrelevant.

 

[Krensky]

If you drop 4e after two years and go back to a previous edition, you're not making a decision based on design. If you went to another system, that I could see as a legitimate design informed by design, but the idea that 3e or another edition is better designed is just a joke, including arguments about it's suitability for some vague, contradictory subgenre.

You liking 4e and thinking it's a better game then all other versions of 4e is cool. It's your opinion and it's an inherently subjective one.

Implying that hose who don't share it are irrational idiots. That's not so cool.

There's a difference between the protection freedom of speech, and the endorsement of organised misinformation. One is a right, the other infringes on that self-same right.

There's no misinformation here. The fact that I, or anyone else, doesn't like 4e and prefers to play 3.X or 2.X or 1e or BEMCI or another basic or OD&D because it's a better game for our tastes doesn't make us wrong.

The only people in the wrong here are those saying that others subjective opinions are wrong and that makes them crazy.