Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Caliburn101" data-source="post: 7026146" data-attributes="member: 6802178">@JhaelanWe have quite different opinions about where the line sits between evidence and opinion it would appear. You cite your use of evidence but then offer up by your own admission only opinion and assumption.You characterise what Mearls said as a marketing pitch - but I see no evidence of that. I think labelling the statement a falsehood without evidence whilst simultaneously being openly disinclined to dig up evidence to support what you say is far from fair on the man, or convincing in discussion.I have repeatedly stated that this thread is about the feel of 4th Edition, not a critique of the playability of, or indeed the fun to be had with the system used by 4th Edition. It is a discussion engaged with from my point of view about how unalike it was compared to all other iterations of the game.Not every person that likes 4th Edition feels the need to try and justify why it is 'like' the other versions - it's a perfectly decent game in and of itself and introduced a handful of innovations that were capable of being integrated into 5th Edition.I have absolutely nothing against 4th Edition and I do wish those who don't agree with me would stop passive aggressively labelling me as a hater.My contention, with evidence, Mearl's opinion, with the weight of D&D gaming history, the exodus of players and the success of Pathfinder etc, etc. all point towards 4th Edition being a significant departure from the expected paradigm that for several significant reasons needed remaking with a more recognisable (to the majority of players) version of the game.You clearly like 4th Edition and whilst it is stating the completely obvious, you have a great deal of material from that system to use to run games into the future - certainly more than 5th Ed. players do.The irony here is that you don't like 5th Edition, which was deliberately designed to be closer to pre-4th Edition versions by WotC, but simultaneously cannot see the fundamental contradiction between that dislike of 5th Editions differences from 4th Edition and the contention that 4th was a natural development of 1 to 3.5...... to be clear - if you don't like 5th Edition because it is closer to the pre-4th Editions, then how can you logically argue that 4th was a natural development of the editions before it?</blockquote>

Verification