Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mneme" data-source="post: 5999071" data-attributes="member: 59248">That's not even wrong.&nbsp; Just saying; you can't replace one logical fallacy with another one like that.But no, I wasn't.&nbsp; I was simply hitting another (and much more measurable) axis than you did with this poll.&nbsp; How I take -any- criticism of 4e is going to be very contextual -- and the &quot;it's not a RPG&quot; criticism is probably the most common one, with some merit (despite being incorrect).The fact is, 4e has a lot of mechanics and a high contact with same. Enough that a -lot- of people have ended up getting turned off by mechanical, not-very-roleplaying 4e sessions.This is fact.&nbsp; The fact that you -can- run a traditional rpg with 4e doesn't displace it (althought it renders &quot;it's just a tactical wargame&quot; moot).But by making a general claim disguised as a poll here, devoid of context, you end up just making a muddled mess.&nbsp; Despite the inflammatory nature of the claim, it isn't one that comes out of nowhere, but out of a not-inconsiderable set of people's experiences with the game.&nbsp; Thus it is entirely possible, depending on how it is said or when/where, that any of your suggestions is true.Regarding the &quot;4e advocate vs not&quot; quesiton...if the poll system allows it, you could have controlled for it via that question (and thus generated more interesting data) rather than potentially turning people off by asking for them to stay out.&nbsp; That is, if the question were interesting as stated, which it isn't.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mneme, post: 5999071, member: 59248"] That's not even wrong. Just saying; you can't replace one logical fallacy with another one like that. But no, I wasn't. I was simply hitting another (and much more measurable) axis than you did with this poll. How I take -any- criticism of 4e is going to be very contextual -- and the "it's not a RPG" criticism is probably the most common one, with some merit (despite being incorrect). The fact is, 4e has a lot of mechanics and a high contact with same. Enough that a -lot- of people have ended up getting turned off by mechanical, not-very-roleplaying 4e sessions. This is fact. The fact that you -can- run a traditional rpg with 4e doesn't displace it (althought it renders "it's just a tactical wargame" moot). But by making a general claim disguised as a poll here, devoid of context, you end up just making a muddled mess. Despite the inflammatory nature of the claim, it isn't one that comes out of nowhere, but out of a not-inconsiderable set of people's experiences with the game. Thus it is entirely possible, depending on how it is said or when/where, that any of your suggestions is true. Regarding the "4e advocate vs not" quesiton...if the poll system allows it, you could have controlled for it via that question (and thus generated more interesting data) rather than potentially turning people off by asking for them to stay out. That is, if the question were interesting as stated, which it isn't. [/QUOTE]

Verification