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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PeacemakerSG" data-source="post: 5825110" data-attributes="member: 53077">It is very tiresome responding to people who don't take the time to first read the posts that they choose to fabricate mythical passages therein.  But here we go.Admin here. I'm going to take the rare step of addressing this publicly instead of privately, because this is a fairly egregious example of a problem we'd like to avoid.There's a number of problems in this post. The biggest is that to a neutral third party, the poster ends up sounding snide and supercilious. The post is full of vicious little insults that are perhaps calculated to be just under the line of actionable. Luckily, that line swings a bit, and it swings a lot more when I read a post and want to boot the new member for rudeness. We hate posts like this. The first sign of someone who is "trying to win" is using a stream of multi-quotes. Along with that, here's a few examples of things to avoid:It is very tiresome responding to people who don't take the time to first read the posts that they choose to fabricate mythical passages therein.Sounds like someone has Alzhiemers setting in. [EDIT: you hadn't said this. My apologies. - PCat]Thanks for showing a little bit restraint although not quite enough patience to be on target.  A short winded off post is much better than long winded and angry off post.I won't apologize for you deciding to be hurt when you failed to read what I actually wrote and mistakenly assume that your generation is being singled out in an attack when that is so very far from the truth.  Now I'll respond to the other words you've put in my mouth.Rebuttal requires you to respond things that were actually stated.As you displayed so little regard for actually reading posts, thereby making false attributions, while also failing to civily ask for clarifications where they may be helpful to quell your misguided passions, your post is firmly in the category of forum clutter. ...oh, and so very many more. If someone said these to my face in a discussion, I'd probably kick them out of my house for being a jerk. EN World is my house. If you're going to be here to talk about the game we love, you're damn well going to be respectful to other members. That means not sinking to personal attack and sarcastic barbs when they don't agree with you.Avoid any more posts like this. PM me if this is in the least bit unclear. And everyone else, please take this as an object lesson for what kinds of posts not to write. Thanks.  -- Piratecat Henry responded to the first part so I'll add only that with each new system, the barrier to joining role playing games has increased due to information overload.   Lumping on options is not the same as artfully creating an organized system to make the range of options and mechanics for using them a relatively simple task. How many new rules and ways of doing things are there in 2e then 3e then 3.5, then 4e?  If there were only a "couple of small bonuses" there would not be dozens of published books for the game.  A new player comes to the table and sees a field of books, all unfamiliar to the new participant.  Here take this one, or this one, or this one has some cool stuff….  AD&D adoption could be handled with one book; about a dozen pages of reading could get you going.  Things are now more complex and therefore need to be better organized for quick starts.  WotC has failed in this aspect.  1e is not better, it has small barriers to entry.  2e-4e are not worse, they have steeper learning curves. It is likely just you.  I've not posted a single thing about ruleless AD&D. Thanks for showing a little bit restraint although not quite enough patience to be on target.  A short winded off post is much better than long winded and angry off post. I won't apologize for you deciding to be hurt when you failed to read what I actually wrote and mistakenly assume that your generation is being singled out in an attack when that is so very far from the truth.  Now I'll respond to the other words you've put in my mouth.   I never said options are bad.  I said that presenting them in a haphazard manner is a barrier to entry into the game, and frankly it is also a bit of a pain in the butt for even us experienced players to manage the materials.  Options are great, most of them came from older generations by the way. I never said they were well organized, but comparatively, they have less steep learning curves as already discussed above. I never made such a comment.  Clammoring?  No.  But as someone that enjoys the game and would like to see it thrive, the barriers to entry need to me minimized and therefore, quite obviously, character creation should be streamlined.  Is that not desirable for players and the game producers as well?  Do you not want more people to join the ranks or are you simply satisfied that you've got what you want?  WotC hired me specifcally to help bring new players into the game so I do know quite a bit about this topic.Rebuttal requires you to respond things that were actually stated. I made no such statement.  I have no contempt for "anything new".  New is good, it keeps us inspired, interested, and having fun. I made no such statement.  I have no contempt for large numbers of options for the same reasons in the previous answer.  Options are great and even better when they are presented in a well organized fashion. Oh boy.  First, no, I observed that it is a quality.  In fact, each successive generation tends to follow this pattern of self interest and expedient demands, yours, mine, and the one's who came before.  Second, I don't in any manner blast anyone for favoring an edition that provides options and ways to be creative.  These things are great.  I love them and I'm glad there is a market for people who enjoy the specific iteration of D&D.  However, 4e play is vastly different in mechanic than previous editions.  This is a fact.  IMO, WotC would be best served building on 4e for an admittedly tactical game and also rebuild the D&D game with all the fun options and fluffy and crunchy stuff but in a highly logical organized manner As you displayed so little regard for actually reading posts, thereby making false attributions, while also failing to civily ask for clarifications where they may be helpful to quell your misguided passions, your post is firmly in the category of forum clutter.  The most powerful and useful communication tool is the asking of a question. I agree whole heartedly that they are generalizations; I believe I even inserted a disclaimer for the on-edge sensitive souls in here.  And as I said above, every generation fits the build to an extent that, in my observation, increases over time.  I'll skip the socio-cultural details for why this occurs and state simply that there is consistently a generation gap from which generalizations are readily observed regarding play styles and gaming interests.  That's not bad, it simply is.  The existing span of age in players that now exists simply makes the play style differences more apparent than ever.  A unified system can be created, but it needs dedicated thought to organize to work across generations. However, it can't be both full-on tactical and full-on non-tactical but can span nearly all the main interests.  Again, a separate tactical game would be a better bet.------------@ Boredgremlin, theredrobedwizard, Savevsdeath - you guys come across as unnecessarily bent out of shape.  You were so angry that your darkside rage took down ENWorld for most of Sunday.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />   Nary an item you stated resembled anything I had posted or implied.  You can be insulted, feigned or otherwise, or you can increase your perception scores a bit ( lighten up, that's funny) and perhaps not continue down an unproductive communciation path.  If something in a post strikes you as incendiary, as some of your reactions seem to indicate, then it is better to ask for clarification rather than assume the worst of intent.  In this medium of brevity that forums are, you cannot expect dissertation length explanations on every iota of content or intention, particularly when the forums are so active and brevity is appreciated.  Words do not always translate when presented sparingly.  I will apologize if my post was not entirely clear, although I am sure way too much was read into it.  This is common fare for web conversations.We are all excited about the prospects of continued support for our beloved game.  Many of us have insights and ideas to share for the betterment of all.  Only a few people seem to voice a my-version-or-the-highway attitude, and even that can be interpreted in positive light as mission accomplished for some of the existing products.  Presumably we want to continue to play and have options and widgets galore to our own tastes.  But the direction WotC has taken in game development makes a single unified product impractical and I believe unnecessary.To further allay your misguided sentiments toward me, I have no issues with 4e players or the 4e game.  Why would I?  But admittedly, 4e is fundamentally different than all previous D&D systems.  It should be a distinct tactical oriented game focused even further along the path than it is now.  Many people like them and the market for them is growing.  I like them too, but not for role playing.  4e has been a source of great revolt precisely because it targets a non-traditional role playing audience but is couched as a role playing game when it is not purely so and WotC knows this.  The 4e target audience is the grown up CCG audience.  They are characterized as I have done, like it or not.  If it were not true, there would not be millions of people playing such games.  This is not character assassination but in fact appreciation for what they tend to enjoy.  So being insulted is bizarre; game companies gave you what you wanted.  Hurrah for you and for game producers.  Everyone wins.The problem that was created, for our little corner of the world, came about when WotC entered into a business decision to decrease and/or drop support for traditional systems while untruthfully suggesting that 4e is just another evolutionary step.  When I was employed by WotC I saw the beginnings of the shift in attitude toward their target market.  They chose to push into the tactical game market and be less focused on the traditional aspects.  They output more content but didn't put in the effort to keep it cohesive.  Thus, edition wars and a mess.  I believe that there is enough variety in role playing and role playingesgue games for everyone to enjoy.  I also believe that WotC has not been exemplary in catering to the span of game styles and has thrown more into the same pot rather than laying out distinct well made recipes.  I love having options, so does everyone from grondard and gronerd to newbie.  Having them presented to the players in a disorganized fashion is something we don't like.So back to my original point, if 4e serves as the basis of a 5e system it will alienate a lot of potential customers.  There is a wide enough gap between 1e and 4e play style and mechanics that there should be two systems, just as there is Pepsi and Diet Pepsi.  Not a lot of people buy Semi-Diet Pepsi because it is too much of what they don't want and too little of what they do want.</blockquote>

Verification