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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3863477" data-attributes="member: 4937">I'm afraid your opinion of me is rather irrelevant.  Do you think I'm supposed to be afraid to say things for fear of losing your respect?Exactly what am I stating that is contriversial?a) By your own admission encounters like KM described 'excite you about playing D&D'.b) By your own admission you don't presently play D&D like that (in any sort of regular way).c) By you own admission you don't like D&D in its present incarnation.What's sleezy about repeating back what you've already said?  It's not at all illogical to draw the conclusion, "Wormwood doesn't like D&D because he doesn't play the game in a way that he would enjoy it."You say that you 'admire' my argument.  Well, that's great because you apparantly never listened to me.  For weeks now I've been saying that so many of the 'problems' that they say that they are trying to fix aren't problems I experience.  Do we freaking need rules for a monster being intelligently played?  What sort of mechanical fix do you suggest for a DMs failure of imagination?  How is that you 'admired' me, but didn't know what I was complaining about?My complaint is the problems with 3.X that everyone is complaining about won't be solved by the suggested mechanical changes, and perhaps can't be solved by any mechanical changes.  My complaint with 3.X was more like, "It would be nice not to have to kludge rules on the spot for what happens when a medium-sized player tries to board a gargantuan monster so it can pound it at close range." than "3.X isn't exciting and the combat is tedious".  Now 4e comes along supposedly to fix that problem, and what do you bet that they don't actually address my complaint?  Instead, they'll claim X mechanic solves the problem of not making combat tedious.  HA!  Wanna bet?</blockquote>

Verification