The Impasse

[Rechan]

It's quite simple, IMO. A person does not need to dislike D&D and/or WotC at all to not be a "blind defender." They can love it 100%.

There's another important distinction.

"Defense" can also mean "counter an argument made against WotC".

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. But playing devil's advocate, or offering the "On one hand, on the other" isn't loving WotC 100%. But it can be accused as such.

Take for instance "raise prices". It has been pointed out on these boards a few times that, if you compare the prices of WotC books and adventures today to how much D&D books/adventures cost during 1e and 2e, they are on par as far as inflation is concerned. That's not defending WotC's actions, but pointing out a fact, and thereby arguing against the initial argument that the raised price is unfair.

Saying "this is the designer's explanation for that" or "I can see where they are coming from, as far as this decision is concerned" is not the same as saying "They're just utterly justified/right, and you're wrong for having a problem with that."

Then there's the fact that people on the internet like to argue. You could have the most positive thread about how great cake is, and someone will come along and say "I don't really like cake. Pie is better."

 

[Sammael]

I agree. I do not think that the current level of prices is unreasonable at all. What I believe is that it is unreasonable when compared to the amount of content which was available in comparable products in previous editions.

Some prices are more justifiable than others. Frex, I think the 4E Draconomicon and Open Grave are great value for the money, while the 4E MM1 is not.

 

[FireLance]

Then there's the fact that people on the internet like to argue.

Not everyone wants to argue. Some just like making vaguely ironic statements.

 

[Rechan]

I agree. I do not think that the current level of prices is unreasonable at all. What I believe is that it is unreasonable when compared to the amount of content which was available in comparable products in previous editions.

Some prices are more justifiable than others. Frex, I think the 4E Draconomicon and Open Grave are great value for the money, while the 4E MM1 is not.

That enters into a whole other issue. What people consider content, and how much of it they want/need. It's more a personal taste issue.

 

[Fenes]

Another clue for "blindly defending" is when a rule is called perfectly fine, working as intended, etc. by a defender when it's criticised, and then later gets corrected by WotC.

 

[wedgeski]

EDIT: For the sake of clarification, the "original rules" I'm referring to are the skill challenge rules. I am not implying that all of 4E is broken, because it's not.

This would have been an extremely helpful clarification in your original post, and is exactly the sort of thing I wanted to draw attention to.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Another clue for "blindly defending" is when a rule is called perfectly fine, working as intended, etc. by a defender when it's criticised, and then later gets corrected by WotC.

Is it? Maybe the poster still found the old rule perfectly fine..

Reminds me of the Golden Wyvern debate. Okay, I disliked the name a lot, but the idea was awesome and the fact that WotC removed the entire concept is disappointing to me. I still see why they did it.

 

[Fenes]

Is it? Maybe the poster still found the old rule perfectly fine..

Reminds me of the Golden Wyvern debate. Okay, I disliked the name a lot, but the idea was awesome and the fact that WotC removed the entire concept is disappointing to me. I still see why they did it.

I am talking about rules, not fluff. I see it a lot in MMOGs - people make up reasons why something that's pretty much clearly a bug or broken is ok, and imagine reasons why it would be designed that way. In the 4E example, it would be people claiming (hypotheticall, I doubt anyone did it there) that PCs are not supposed to pass most skill challenges.

 

[Rechan]

I am talking about rules, not fluff. I see it a lot in MMOGs - people make up reasons why something that's pretty much clearly a bug or broken is ok, and imagine reasons why it would be designed that way. In the 4E example, it would be people claiming (hypotheticall, I doubt anyone did it there) that PCs are not supposed to pass most skill challenges.

Or, again, someone can prefer the old way the rule works.

Take for instance the 3e Harm spell. In 3.0, it reduced the target to 1d4 HP. In 3.5, it did 10 damage/caster level. Some liked the original, because it was deadly. Others thought it was anti-climactic (hit the dragon, reduce it to 3 hp, stab it with a rusty spoon). Just because people defended the 3.0 version, it doesn't make them defending WotC; they just like that version better.

There's also the issue of WotC not being able to get the damn rule right. See: Wildshape/polymorph. New errata was issued every three months.

 

[Fenes]

I'd say anyone who simply defended each new rule from WotC, even if it changed the old rule he liked, is a blind defender.

In short: Blind defenders are those who change their opinions and preferences (or at least their stated ones) whenever WotC changes something.