Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5986781" data-attributes="member: 87792">Ah, the &quot;it's just a word&quot; defence. Right.&nbsp;&nbsp;Not according to my group. Four of the members of which have over twenty five years of experience of D&amp;D each. 4e swung against some tropes of 3.5 and 2e was in many ways a rejection of the gamism of 1e. Some strands of 3.5 play fell into 4e with no problem because 4e was a direct continuation of what they wanted to play. Others fell by the wayside because like every edition change some parts of the previous editions were emphasised at the expense of others.&nbsp;&nbsp;For the record it really, really isn't just you. Just ask the OSR &quot;Rulings not rules&quot; crowd. Who would say 3.0 was the opposite to the rules-light system that D&amp;D was.&nbsp;&nbsp;No. Many people reject 4e because they do not like it. Many others reject it because it is too much of a mechanical change. These are not arbitrary reasons. It's the justifications that often are arbitrary (and are often bald-faced lies (not that I'm accusing you here) or post-facto justifications). Justin Alexander is a good example of the second - he determined he does not like it and then whenever he has a chance he always says he doesn't like 4e even when it does exactly what he says he wants.&nbsp;Saying &quot;I don't like 4e&quot; is fine. But much of the time the reasons are mistaken (a lot of this has to do with the common presentation of 4e). And many of those can be won over.&nbsp;Saying &quot;4e isn't D&amp;D&quot; on the other hand or &quot;4e is the opposite of D&amp;D&quot; is not only factually wrong, it is an active attempt to degrade the conversation and needs opposing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5986781, member: 87792"] Ah, the "it's just a word" defence. Right. Not according to my group. Four of the members of which have over twenty five years of experience of D&D each. 4e swung against [I]some[/I] tropes of 3.5 and 2e was in many ways a rejection of the gamism of 1e. Some strands of 3.5 play fell into 4e with no problem because 4e was a direct continuation of what they wanted to play. Others fell by the wayside because [I]like every edition change[/I] some parts of the previous editions were emphasised at the expense of others. For the record it really, really isn't just you. Just ask the OSR "Rulings not rules" crowd. Who would say [I]3.0[/I] was the opposite to the rules-light system that D&D was. No. Many people reject 4e because they do not like it. Many others reject it because it is too much of a mechanical change. These are not arbitrary reasons. It's the justifications that often are arbitrary (and are often bald-faced lies (not that I'm accusing you here) or post-facto justifications). Justin Alexander is a good example of the second - he determined he does not like it and then whenever he has a chance he always says he doesn't like 4e even when it does exactly what he says he wants. Saying "I don't like 4e" is fine. But much of the time the reasons are mistaken (a lot of this has to do with the common presentation of 4e). And many of those can be won over. Saying "4e isn't D&D" on the other hand or "4e is the opposite of D&D" is not only factually wrong, it is an active attempt to degrade the conversation and needs opposing. [/QUOTE]

Verification