Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ProfessorCirno" data-source="post: 4519519" data-attributes="member: 65637">You know, I feel the need to refer back to myself.&nbsp; This thread just helps so much in proving my own point that it wasn't Wizards that made the divide as wide and painful as it is, it's the legion of 4e fanboys that cannot abide anyone saying anything bad about the game.This whole thread started as &quot;Why aren't I your target audience?&quot; and was quickly answered with &quot;Because something is wrong with you.&quot;As for the idea that 4e caters to everyone if they'd just make up their own rules, no.&nbsp; No, it doesn't, and that's a stupid argument, and it wouldn't work for any other game.&nbsp; I can alter any game and any system in existence to do what I want so long as I just BS it enough; that hardly speaks out in that game's favor.&nbsp; The crafting thing just blows my mind - the actual argument here is &quot;4e has crafting if you put it in.&quot;&nbsp; Well, Deadlands can be played to take place in outer space if I put that in, but last I checked nobody cared because that's not an official part of the game.Crafting is not an official part of the game.&nbsp; Dialogue skills are not an official part of the game.&nbsp; The vast majority of spells having a use outside of combat is not an official part of the game.&nbsp; It doesn't matter how much you houserule it, it's still not a part of the game, and that's what people are refering to regarding the modularity.&nbsp; And before someone gets mad at me, that isn't inherently a bad thing.&nbsp; Some people love that non-combat spells are 100% rituals.&nbsp; We had a whole thread of someone talking about how happy they were that there were no crafting rules.&nbsp; 4e knows exactly what it wants to be, devil take the rest.&nbsp; Some people like what 4e wants to be.&nbsp; But some people don't, and the problem is that those people are left behind.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ProfessorCirno, post: 4519519, member: 65637"] You know, I feel the need to refer back to myself. This thread just helps so much in proving my own point that it wasn't Wizards that made the divide as wide and painful as it is, it's the legion of 4e fanboys that [I]cannot abide anyone saying anything bad about the game[/I]. This whole thread started as "Why aren't I your target audience?" and was quickly answered with "Because something is wrong with you." As for the idea that 4e caters to [I]everyone[/I] if they'd just make up their own rules, no. No, it doesn't, and that's a stupid argument, and it wouldn't work for any other game. I can alter any game and any system in existence to do what I want so long as I just BS it enough; that hardly speaks out in that game's favor. The crafting thing just blows my mind - the actual argument here is "4e has crafting if you put it in." Well, Deadlands can be played to take place [I]in outer space[/I] if I put that in, but last I checked nobody cared because that's not an official part of the game. Crafting is not an official part of the game. Dialogue skills are not an official part of the game. The vast majority of spells having a use outside of combat is not an official part of the game. It doesn't matter how much you houserule it, [I]it's still not a part of the game[/I], and that's what people are refering to regarding the modularity. And before someone gets mad at me, [I]that isn't inherently a bad thing[/I]. Some people [B]love[/B] that non-combat spells are 100% rituals. We had a whole thread of someone talking about how happy they were that there were no crafting rules. 4e knows exactly what it wants to be, devil take the rest. Some people like what 4e wants to be. But some people don't, and the problem is that those people are left behind. [/QUOTE]

Verification