Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jeffh" data-source="post: 5709111" data-attributes="member: 2642">Actually, they're based on the things I said they were based on - namely, failure to use reasonably well-understood best practices - not on something else. It's not so much misreading his audience as (A) writing for far too narrow an audience and (B) writing things that are not maximally useful even for that intended audience.But, let's run with your current misunderstanding for a bit anyway, since it's at least closer to the mark than your previous one...&quot;EN World&quot; has done nothing of the sort. I don't think it has an official position on the matter, and as an organization, continues to support and even produce products for 4E.Some individual EN World members have done things that superficially resemble what you describe. Not all; not a majority; not even a lot; but some. But in general, edition warriors don't simply say &quot;they changed it, now it sucks&quot;; for every one that does, there are at least three that give reasons why the changes negatively affect their enjoyment of the game. Nobody, or at least nobody worth listening to, thinks the bare fact that it changed is a sufficient criticism all by itself. They give reasons.TL;DR version: (A) &quot;ENWorld&quot; does not speak with one voice on, well, anything I can think of really, beyond maybe the basic idea that tabletop RPGs are kind of cool; and (B) I think you misrepresent even the smallish part of the ENWorld membership that does sort of look the way you describe if you squint at it right.(And (C) As per the newly-added top part of my post, even if I were wrong about (A) and (B), which I'm not, it would do little to undermine my actual argument anyway, only your caricature of it.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jeffh, post: 5709111, member: 2642"] Actually, they're based on the things I said they were based on - namely, failure to use reasonably well-understood best practices - not on something else. It's not so much misreading his audience as (A) writing for far too narrow an audience and (B) writing things that are not maximally useful [I]even for that intended audience[/I]. But, let's run with your current misunderstanding for a bit anyway, since it's at least closer to the mark than your previous one... "EN World" has done nothing of the sort. I don't think it [I]has[/I] an official position on the matter, and as an organization, continues to support and even produce products for 4E. [i]Some individual EN World members[/I] have done things that superficially resemble what you describe. Not all; not a majority; not even a lot; but some. But in general, edition warriors [I]don't[/I] simply say "they changed it, now it sucks"; for every one that does, there are at least three that [I]give reasons[/I] why the changes negatively affect their enjoyment of the game. Nobody, or at least nobody worth listening to, thinks the bare fact that it changed is a sufficient criticism all by itself. They [I]give reasons[/I]. TL;DR version: (A) "ENWorld" does not speak with one voice on, well, anything I can think of really, beyond maybe the basic idea that tabletop RPGs are kind of cool; and (B) I think you misrepresent even the smallish part of the ENWorld membership that [I]does[/I] sort of look the way you describe if you squint at it right. (And (C) As per the newly-added top part of my post, even if I were wrong about (A) and (B), which I'm not, it would do little to undermine my [I]actual[/I] argument anyway, only your caricature of it.) [/QUOTE]

Verification