Fundamentally people didn't like 4E
I thought the implication was fairly obvious: those RPGers who like 4e are not people!This seems like some fairly silly edition-war nonsense, given the sales on 4E.
Fundamentally people didn't like 4E
I thought the implication was fairly obvious: those RPGers who like 4e are not people!This seems like some fairly silly edition-war nonsense, given the sales on 4E.
Obviously there is a difference between a one time misunderstanding and persistent toxic behavior.Oh, I do so love the 'you're just too thin-skinned to take obviously good-natured abuse' position.
How do you know they are being disingenuous?Also, there is the issue with people claiming offense as an underhanded way of shutting down a viewpoint they disagree with.
See also echo chamber.
Let's be fair.I thought the implication was fairly obvious: those RPGers who like 4e are not people!
I liked 4e (not at first, but by the time it was terminated, I was sad about it). Now I've lost my personhood!I thought the implication was fairly obvious: those RPGers who like 4e are not people!
give no one know what this even is in practical terms possibly?I liked 4e (not at first, but by the time it was terminated, I was sad about it). Now I've lost my personhood!
Have I become a Vestige?
Great! Now find me a Binder, I have cool powers to dispense as I claw my way back to existence!give no one know what this even is in practical terms possibly?
How do you know they are being disingenuous?
In my experience, if its really not a big deal, and only one or two people have issue, the discussion goes on. I don't wonder when somebody tells me they are offended by something. I just believe them.It's a judgement call, but I would say frequency and intensity are good indicators.
Yes, different people have different tolerances/sensitivities, but sometimes you just have to wonder.