Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6651936" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, we're talking about 2 editions of the same game here, so in some sense they're both able to 'do the same thing', so what can be the point of discussion really except which one does certain things better? You guys have spent a huge amount of time trying defend some sort of proposition that 5e 'does it all'. Whenever some limitation or quirk is mentioned the 5e defender corps swings into action and tries to make like it doesn't exist, its unimportant, or &quot;you can just house rule it.&quot; This is missing whatever point might exist to this kind of discussion, which is 5e can do X better, but it doesn't do Y as well, or you have to make up entirely new rules for Y, etc. That's a valid point to consider. So, what I don't understand is why you guys keep trying to say &quot;so what?&quot; to the points made here. They're pretty much all perfectly valid points. That doesn't mean there's some tragic flaw in 5e that makes it a bad game or something. I mean really, be glad people are in such a kind and generous mood because I spent the last 7 years hearing virtually NOTHING but how the game I like literally objectively sucked rocks in hell and was a piece of garbage because of any little thing the poster didn't like. By comparison there's not the slightest need to get defensive about 5e, we all think its a perfectly OK game. It doesn't need a blanket &quot;nothing at all is imperfect here&quot; defense. In fact the thing that always really pissed me off about the execrable quality of the debate about 4e was that you couldn't have a constructive discussion about it at all, anywhere, except in a private chat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 6651936, member: 82106"] Well, we're talking about 2 editions of the same game here, so in some sense they're both able to 'do the same thing', so what can be the point of discussion really except which one does certain things better? You guys have spent a huge amount of time trying defend some sort of proposition that 5e 'does it all'. Whenever some limitation or quirk is mentioned the 5e defender corps swings into action and tries to make like it doesn't exist, its unimportant, or "you can just house rule it." This is missing whatever point might exist to this kind of discussion, which is 5e can do X better, but it doesn't do Y as well, or you have to make up entirely new rules for Y, etc. That's a valid point to consider. So, what I don't understand is why you guys keep trying to say "so what?" to the points made here. They're pretty much all perfectly valid points. That doesn't mean there's some tragic flaw in 5e that makes it a bad game or something. I mean really, be glad people are in such a kind and generous mood because I spent the last 7 years hearing virtually NOTHING but how the game I like literally objectively sucked rocks in hell and was a piece of garbage because of any little thing the poster didn't like. By comparison there's not the slightest need to get defensive about 5e, we all think its a perfectly OK game. It doesn't need a blanket "nothing at all is imperfect here" defense. In fact the thing that always really pissed me off about the execrable quality of the debate about 4e was that you couldn't have a constructive discussion about it at all, anywhere, except in a private chat. [/QUOTE]

Verification