Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7444601" data-attributes="member: 48965">And that's fine since we can all have our opinions... Of course if you didn't agree with what I posted it might have been better to just address my argument and why you disagree with it as opposed to ascribing motivation, tone, emotional state, etc to my post which given the medium is probably hard to ascertain from words alone and more importantly since we've gone down this road before and you had to be corrected probably wrong... but since you put a qualifier at the beginning of your assumptions I guess that makes it all ok... especially since I've corrected you  again on your mistaken reading of subtext in my posts again.Because that wasn't the part I was addressing.  I'm not going to argue that Campbell didn't have more fun with Sorcerer for a significant amount of time ... that's a purely subjective realm that only he knows the answer to... so I have no reason to think he's being dishonest or disingenuous when he makes said claim.  I'm interested in the statements I quoted however because, as I said in my previous post, they are outside the realm of personal preference and thus can be discussed from numerous points of view. To address the second part of your statement... My argument to begin with was that D&D could reproduce this experience... how well or how consistently are not things I've commented on yet because the fundamental idea that D&D could reproduce said experience (the what in my list of questions) was still in question so again that is what I have been addressing.  Now if you agree that it can in fact produce said experience we can move on to the how and I can relate my thoughts om it... but has the "what" and whether D&D can produce it been satisfactorily established?Because it was a more narrow design than what they had before?  The reaction could happen if in fact 4e lost some/much of the flexibility of accommodating play styles that it's previous edition had (and let's be real with the OGL and the numerous products based on 3.x it was a very flexible game... especially if one was open to exploring variants).  But again this is jumping the gun we haven't established the what or the how and now we're discussing  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=29398" target="_blank">Lanefan</a> 's #4 question.  And how exactly is that?  I haven't insulted anyone, I haven't ascribed anything to a poster... I've stated my thoughts and suggested a way to go about discussing it.  This seems more based in the fact that you don't agreee with my thoughts then any actual "way" I've phrased or went about posting.  But please if I have done any of these things show me an example... Nope not reading your character asking about a pattern in your posting.  I don't know you well enough to read your character but I know we've run into the issue of you mis-reading my "subtext" before and here we are again... at a certain point rather than write a long parargraph about what you thing I'm trying to say it might be better for you top take my posts at face value or actually ask me before posting what you think the "hidden" meaning of my words are.I thought this might be the case...So you don't agree with my thoughts but instead of addressing them directly in discussion you instead are ascribing subtext to my posts (something you've done before with incorrectly)... I guess that's a way to show your disdain for my viewpoint, but if that's the case why not just choose not to engage on a viewpoint you see no merit in?  Me personally I'm open to seeing that I may be wrong in my assumptions but from this statement you're basically saying there's nothing worth discussing in my viewpoint for you... that's cool, to each their own but then why even engage on this topic with me?</blockquote>

Verification