Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ProfessorCirno" data-source="post: 5439489" data-attributes="member: 65637">I don't buy it.Plenty of people hated 3e for those exact problems.&nbsp; Most my dislikes of 3e stem from those problems that are being claimed as non-existant.&nbsp; Just because you didn't have them didn't mean that did not exist at all.&nbsp; In fact, the vast majority of those problems became more obvious the more you played.&nbsp; This is precisely what incenses the edition war - &quot;I didn't experience that, so you are objectively wrong!&quot;I've said it a million times in just the past week, so let's say it once more:When I criticize 3e, it is after literally years of playing it and finding the various cracks and flaws and pits that I dislike.&nbsp; I've played most classes that were printed.&nbsp; I have hundreds and hundreds of hours of 3.0 and 3.5 under the belt.&nbsp; I know the game.When so many people criticize 4e, it comes from having not played it.You can rofl it up about using &quot;n00b&quot; with 0's as much as you want, but the fact is, if you haven't played the game, I have more experience regarding my criticisms.&nbsp; I'm coming from a position of first hand knowledge.&nbsp; When you criticize a game you've never played and only briefly skimmed one of the books, you are coming from a position of ignorance.&nbsp; Not &quot;you're ignorant&quot; as an insult, but &quot;you do not have knowledge or understanding about the topic.&quot;There seems to be this strange belief that you were &quot;doing it wrong&quot; if you saw the flaws that are blindingly obvious in the engine of the game.&nbsp; I believe the opposite - if you never saw a game crash because a spellcaster had a spell for every occasion or could single handedly end a fight; if you never saw players get bored and disinterested because the game punished you harshly for playing certain character types; if you never saw fighters find themselves completely useless; if you never saw someone get frustrated because only spellcasters were allowed narrative power and they wanted to make a mythical swordsman hero, then either you and your players never dove deeply into the game, or your players did see it and went out of their way to self-regulate.The anger at CharOps is hilarious, because they're entire purvey is in the rules.&nbsp; Once you throw away the &quot;thought experiments,&quot; there's still a ton of stuff there that is rooted entirely in the game itself.&nbsp; By getting mad at them, you're getting mad at the same game you're praising in the same breath.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ProfessorCirno, post: 5439489, member: 65637"] I don't buy it. Plenty of people hated 3e for those exact problems. Most my dislikes of 3e stem from those problems that are being claimed as non-existant. Just because [I]you[/I] didn't have them didn't mean that did not exist at all. In fact, the vast majority of those problems became more obvious the [B]more[/B] you played. This is precisely what incenses the edition war - "I didn't experience that, so you are objectively wrong!" I've said it a million times in just the past week, so let's say it once more: When I criticize 3e, it is after literally years of playing it and finding the various cracks and flaws and pits that I dislike. I've played most classes that were printed. I have hundreds and hundreds of hours of 3.0 and 3.5 under the belt. I know the game. When so many people criticize 4e, it comes from having not played it. You can rofl it up about using "n00b" with 0's as much as you want, but the fact is, if you haven't played the game, [I]I have more experience regarding my criticisms.[/I] I'm coming from a position of first hand knowledge. When you criticize a game you've never played and only briefly skimmed one of the books, you are coming from a position of ignorance. Not "you're ignorant" as an insult, but "you do not have knowledge or understanding about the topic." There seems to be this strange belief that you were "doing it wrong" if you saw the flaws that are blindingly obvious in the engine of the game. I believe the opposite - if you never saw a game crash because a spellcaster had a spell for every occasion or could single handedly end a fight; if you never saw players get bored and disinterested because the game punished you harshly for playing certain character types; if you never saw fighters find themselves completely useless; if you never saw someone get frustrated because only spellcasters were allowed narrative power and they wanted to make a mythical swordsman hero, then either you and your players never dove deeply into the game, or your players [I]did[/I] see it and went out of their way to self-regulate. The anger at CharOps is hilarious, because they're entire purvey is [B]in the rules[/B]. Once you throw away the "thought experiments," there's still a ton of stuff there that is rooted entirely in the game itself. By getting mad at them, you're getting mad at the same game you're praising in the same breath. [/QUOTE]

Verification