Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 6532273" data-attributes="member: 957">I make no claim that you personally have done so.&nbsp; Again, this gets back to people talking past each other.&nbsp; &nbsp; As I said many many pages back, the term &quot;roles&quot; gained a different implication in 4E and became a more codified part of the vernacular.&nbsp; When you talk about roles in the specific context of 4e mechanics, you are talking about something that many many people did not experience in any way shape or form when they were playing older versions of the game.You could go back an retroactively draw an evolution from natural tendencies in prior games.&nbsp; But it is not even shades of grey.&nbsp; You are on the same rainbow, but you've moved from redish-orange to solid indigo.So when people who don't like 4E say that THEY didn't have &quot;roles&quot; (meaning specifically as encountered in 4E), they are telling the truth.&nbsp; When 4E fans say that &quot;roles&quot; (meaning a vague concept) existed in AD&amp;D, they are telling the truth.&nbsp; When 4E fans then say that both are the same then they are either being dishonest or simply completely failing to grasp the distinction.I think it is the latter.Which comes back to the point about opening minds and agreeing that other perspectives are ok.I note that agreement with my request for recognition of differing opinions did not not materialize despite the prior claims that this recognition was availble.yep.&nbsp; True.But still missing the point.And the point has been covered a hundred times now.&nbsp;&nbsp; So be it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 6532273, member: 957"] I make no claim that you personally have done so. Again, this gets back to people talking past each other. As I said many many pages back, the term "roles" gained a different implication in 4E and became a more codified part of the vernacular. When you talk about roles in the specific context of 4e mechanics, you are talking about something that many many people did not experience in any way shape or form when they were playing older versions of the game. You could go back an retroactively draw an evolution from natural tendencies in prior games. But it is not even shades of grey. You are on the same rainbow, but you've moved from redish-orange to solid indigo. So when people who don't like 4E say that THEY didn't have "roles" (meaning specifically as encountered in 4E), they are telling the truth. When 4E fans say that "roles" (meaning a vague concept) existed in AD&D, they are telling the truth. When 4E fans then say that both are the same then they are either being dishonest or simply completely failing to grasp the distinction. I think it is the latter. Which comes back to the point about opening minds and agreeing that other perspectives are ok. I note that agreement with my request for recognition of differing opinions did not not materialize despite the prior claims that this recognition was availble. yep. True. But still missing the point. And the point has been covered a hundred times now. So be it. [/QUOTE]

Verification