When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[justanobody]

That's quite a spiel. "Sad throwback", "devolve" and "ugly head" are not exactly productive-discussion-friendly words.

It was an exaggeration.

Are you referring to me, specifically? I've never played 4E. I don't judge games until I've played them.

I misread your sig to say "I am not some 4e fanboy" instead of "don't think I am a 4e fanboy".

Signatures don't show up on the quote page.....

 

[Jeff Wilder]

[That 4E is much more combat-centric is] a colored perception by people who want to see it that way, no more true than when the 2e grogs used the same line of attack against 3e.

Just out of curiosity, what is the motive for this? Why, exactly, do people who see 4E as they've described "want" to see it that way? What do they gain from seeing it that way?

As far as I can tell, those people -- me, included -- who can't stomach 4E are (potentially and/or eventually) losing out on being able to find lots of healthy games with lots of players. We're losing out on the fun of reading new D&D sourcebooks (because, yeah, like a poster way upthread mentioned, I enjoy reading D&D books -- pre-4E -- just to read them).

The only thing I can figure out that I, personally, have gained from my dislike of 4E is the end of purchasing new books, which is saving me quite a bit of money. But (1) again, I enjoy reading gaming books, and (2) frankly, I have enough disposable income that the money I'm not spending just isn't that big a deal.

So why do we "want" to see 4E the way people have (IMO accurately) described it?

 

[Thasmodious]

Just out of curiosity, what is the motive for this? Why, exactly, do people who see 4E as they've described "want" to see it that way? What do they gain from seeing it that way?

As far as I can tell, those people -- me, included -- who can't stomach 4E are (potentially and/or eventually) losing out on being able to find lots of healthy games with lots of players. We're losing out on the fun of reading new D&D sourcebooks (because, yeah, like a poster way upthread mentioned, I enjoy reading D&D books -- pre-4E -- just to read them).

The only thing I can figure out that I, personally, have gained from my dislike of 4E is the end of purchasing new books, which is saving me quite a bit of money. But (1) again, I enjoy reading gaming books, and (2) frankly, I have enough disposable income that the money I'm not spending just isn't that big a deal.

So why do we "want" to see 4E the way people have (IMO accurately) described it?

That's the million dollar question. But many of the group that could be classed as the "haters" have hated 4e since months before its release. A single detail or two that became known early was their first reason (powers, frost giants, 1-1-1, etc), but it snowballed as more things became known. It's not really some big mystery. People make snap judgments all the time and then go to great lengths to rationalize them, despite evidence to the contrary. They made the decision to hate it first, now they have a want to justify it.

You don't hear from many people who had an open mind all the way, looked forward to the release of a new edition, then thought it was complete crap and will never play it again. People made their decisions months in advance. I went the same route. When I first heard the announcement, my reaction was negative. Then I thought about it a bit, remembered how I've loved every edition of the game, even 3e, which I was very skeptical about before release. So I decided to not sweat it this time around and just look forward to a new edition.

And yes, when people playing the game are telling those who "despise" it that despite their perception, the value of the ruleset is that it disappears into the background and it actually helps you play the game the way you want to play it, that is evidence to the contrary.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

That's the million dollar question. [...] People make snap judgments all the time and then go to great lengths to rationalize them, despite evidence to the contrary. They made the decision to hate it first, now they have a want to justify it.

Just to make sure I'm understanding, the reason people who dislike 4E "want" to perceive it as too combat-centric is because they're rationalizing other negative perceptions they've formed about 4E?

Okay ... so why did they "want" to form those other negative perceptions about 4E?

In your view, is it possible that people are saying they perceive 4E to be too combat-centric because they perceive 4E to be too combat-centric?

(Do people who perceive Ben & Jerry's Chocolate Fudge Brownie as "too chocolatey" want to perceive it that way?)

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

So you're angry that people disagree with you?

I'm open to reasoned discussion of why a person likes or dislikes any edition and at least implied as much in the post you quoted.

So those two bolded things? Both were brought up in this thread in a non-insulting manner, in fully intelligent and understandable posts meant to encourage further discussion. You have stated that these are nothing but buzzwords, and that the person who made those posts is just trying to attack others. You have very pointedly reduced several posts with discussions following to nothing but an angry tirade.

I didn't reduce the post to an angry tirade. Many of those posts espoused detailed reasons for a dislike of 4E. But then used the buzzwords to sum up their point. Saying that an RPG like 4E is a "tactical wargame" or a "boardgame" belittles the game and by association belittles the players of said game. Discussing the specific changes made that lead you to hold this opinion doesn't offend players of the game as much as claiming that their RPG of choice actually isn't an RPG.

That's why people refer to a rabid fanbase - because to you, "discussing 4e" equates to "not saying things I dislike."

I have never said this. See above for ways to discuss the many flaws you see in 4E without pushing the buttons of those who enjoy the game. Some of those who enjoy the game might even agree with some of the elements you dislike.

Edit: Furthermore, I've seen several posters comment on new gamers refering to 4e as reminding them of WoW. And you know what? They said it in a positive way. I'm sorry, but unless the poster IS making just an angry tirade, cutting their post and, more importantly, their thoughts and opinions, is what makes so many people here think of RABIES. They don't see someone discussing a game at that point - they see someone defending it with gnashing teeth.

Re: WoW - Most people calling 4E "too Wow" are not saying it positively.

People tend to get angry and gnash their teeth when they feel someone else is belittling their favorite hobby. I have to admit I used to act the same way. I joked about "Magic: the Addiction" and LARPers. I tried the former and found it enjoyable. I realized that players of the latter enjoy the game. I don't need to understand why they do and I don't need to go on messageboards related to their hobby and belittle the game and its players.

And that's MY humble opinion.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

This might be an apt analogy if the cookbook did not clearly contain most of the same ingredients as previous editions. The spices have certainly been changed, and maybe they added a little something that wasn't there before or taken something away, but claiming that the ingredients have changed completely is ridiculous.

No, you think the ingredients are the exact same. Others do not.

That's why cookbook metaphors are bad. because if we can't agree on what D&D is, do you really think we'll be able to agree on what metaphor to use? ;p

Anyways, it's sad to see this thread devolve into the typical RABIES from a small select few who cannot abide to see anyone dislike 4e or even think that 4e might at some point have some flaws.

I should trademark the whole all caps bolded RABIES thing...

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Okay ... so why did they "want" to form those other negative perceptions about 4E?

I don't know about them, but I wanted to be very negative about 2E back in the day. I was out of work and didn't have the money to buy new books. I invested alot of time learning 1E and didn't want to learn all the small changes made to the game. So I found every issue I could with the game because I wanted to be negative about the game so I could stick with 1E and "justify" my decision. Who was I trying to justify my decision to? I really don't know. I feel it was very odd to negatively slam the new edition just because I wanted to play the previous. Especially in hindsight knowing that I eventually bought the books.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I didn't reduce the post to an angry tirade. Many of those posts espoused detailed reasons for a dislike of 4E. But then used the buzzwords to sum up their point. Saying that an RPG like 4E is a "tactical wargame" or a "boardgame" belittles the game and by association belittles the players of said game. Discussing the specific changes made that lead you to hold this opinion doesn't offend players of the game as much as claiming that their RPG of choice actually isn't an RPG.

But you're clinging to the buzzword and ignoring the three paragraph post. Buzzwords don't exist because we nefariously want to use them to drive other people to extremes, buzzwords exist because human beings like to keep things simple. That buzzword is there for the "tl;dr" people (though quite frankly I'd perfer they simply be booted off the internet entirely, personally). it's a way to start your point of view: "I think 4e is mostly like a tactical wargame. This is because blah blah blah."

Buzzwords are only bad if the poster ONLY uses buzzwords, or if the other party only pays attention to them.

I have never said this. See above for ways to discuss the many flaws you see in 4E without pushing the buttons of those who enjoy the game. Some of those who enjoy the game might even agree with some of the elements you dislike.

Again, the problem is that the use of buzzwords isn't a bad thing unless, as I stated earlier, it's part of an angry tirade or the person is purposefully using them to be insulting. You can't ignore a person's opinion just because he used a buzzword you dislike. Well, you CAN, but it's a bad thing to do.

Re: WoW - Most people calling 4E "too Wow" are not saying it positively.

People tend to get angry and gnash their teeth when they feel someone else is belittling their favorite hobby. I have to admit I used to act the same way. I joked about "Magic: the Addiction" and LARPers. I tried the former and found it enjoyable. I realized that players of the latter enjoy the game. I don't need to understand why they do and I don't need to go on messageboards related to their hobby and belittle the game and its players.

And that's MY humble opinion.

One person's belittling is another's honest perspective. See...well, the posts right above yours, where one poster adamantly refuses to believe you can find something wrong with 4e without there being some ulterior or nefarious (I like this word) motive behind it. Good lord, this is the attitude of a cult member, not a hobbiest.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

But you're clinging to the buzzword and ignoring the three paragraph post. Buzzwords don't exist because we nefariously want to use them to drive other people to extremes, buzzwords exist because human beings like to keep things simple. That buzzword is there for the "tl;dr" people (though quite frankly I'd perfer they simply be booted off the internet entirely, personally). it's a way to start your point of view: "I think 4e is mostly like a tactical wargame. This is because blah blah blah."

Buzzwords are only bad if the poster ONLY uses buzzwords, or if the other party only pays attention to them.

Buzzwords are dangerous to use for the very reason you state. They are the written equivalent of the focal point of a painting. A single buzzword can derail a person from reading your entire post and react in the way the buzzword has evolved. Some buzzwords here obviously anger other posters, yet some decide to continue to use them. I try to read around the buzzwords (even though their use irritates me personally) and get to the meat of the person's opinion. It is only when the poster only uses buzzwords that I get angry. So we agree on at least one point.

 

[jensun]

Anyways, it's sad to see this thread devolve into the typical RABIES from a small select few who cannot abide to see anyone dislike 4e or even think that 4e might at some point have some flaws.

Repeatedly saying something does not make it true.

Personally I see more bile from a small number of people determined to hate 4e who crop up endlessly in threads about it to tell people how wrong they are to like the game.