Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4553058" data-attributes="member: 18280">Agreed, but then I am not opening these threads.  If there was a thread for folks to discuss "Longswords deal 2d20.  I don't like it." without folks coming in to tell them that (a) longswords don't deal 2d20, (b) longswords always dealt 2d20, (c) they are fooling themselves; longswords should deal 2d20, and even (d) they really like longswords dealing 2d20; they just don't know it yet, I suppose there would be less of a problem.Of course, I have noted that, with Schroedinger's Wounding, a number of threads have opened with no apparent purpose but to say that those who believe it is a feature of 4e are kinda stupid.Overall, I guess what I am saying is that (1) there is a thread ignore tool on EN World, and (2) if you don't enjoy discussing moonpies, don't discuss moonpies.  Again, have you seen me disrupting any pro-4e discussions since the game came out?  Any?  There is a reason for that.I will also note that there are some great pro-4e folks who are, apparently, not at all threatened that some don't like their game of choice, and don't go around disrupting anti-4e discussions.   Or maybe they are just really smart, and know that the fastest way to make anti-anything threads go away is to not post pro-same thing in them.Oh, also you missed my point:  "X has always had problem Y, Z just makes it worse" is not a very convincing pro-Z argument.  Making Y worse isn't good game design, and if you had problem Y when it was less of a problem, Z is unlikely to fix it for you.RC</blockquote>

Verification