Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5994034" data-attributes="member: 957">First - As your quote clearly demonstrates, the style you prefer was supported all along.&nbsp; I acknowledge they exist.&nbsp; I don't ackowledge they represented any major element of the overall popularity of D&amp;D.Second - Your &quot;dug in their heels&quot; line is simply shallow and closed minded.&nbsp; 4E supports my playstyle.&nbsp; But it does a rather remarkably poor job of supporting my playstyle.&nbsp; It is great that you love 4E.&nbsp; It is absurd that you be so hostile to others who choose to play a different game when that different game is head and shoulders superior at delivering so completely different a goal.&nbsp; And OBVIOUSLY you get that point because you yourself are saying it with the shoe simply on the other foot when you complain about prior systems not catering to you as well.&nbsp; All editions are not equal.&nbsp; I AGREE that 4E does the things you advocate far better than other eidtions.&nbsp; Why can't you agree that other editions do some things far better than 4E and therefore it is completely reasonable to prefer those other editions, thus claims of dug in heels and refusal to acknowledge are completely unfair and counter-productive.I am certain that your &quot;fairly strong segment&quot; statement is far from accurate.&nbsp; I am certain that your characterization of non-4E players is unfair.I get why those positions are comfortable to you.But in the end Mearls still said &quot;If you like world building 4E may not be the game for you.&quot;&nbsp; He said that before it was ever released.&nbsp; Cool.&nbsp; They accepted that they would lose some players for legitimate reasons.&nbsp; You should do the same.&nbsp; Now they have accepted that vastly more people than expected felt those legitamite reasons.&nbsp; You should do the same.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5994034, member: 957"] First - As your quote clearly demonstrates, the style you prefer was supported all along. I acknowledge they exist. I don't ackowledge they represented any major element of the overall popularity of D&D. Second - Your "dug in their heels" line is simply shallow and closed minded. 4E supports my playstyle. But it does a rather remarkably poor job of supporting my playstyle. It is great that you love 4E. It is absurd that you be so hostile to others who choose to play a different game when that different game is head and shoulders superior at delivering so completely different a goal. And OBVIOUSLY you get that point because you yourself are saying it with the shoe simply on the other foot when you complain about prior systems not catering to you as well. All editions are not equal. I AGREE that 4E does the things you advocate far better than other eidtions. Why can't you agree that other editions do some things far better than 4E and therefore it is completely reasonable to prefer those other editions, thus claims of dug in heels and refusal to acknowledge are completely unfair and counter-productive. I am certain that your "fairly strong segment" statement is far from accurate. I am certain that your characterization of non-4E players is unfair. I get why those positions are comfortable to you. But in the end Mearls still said "If you like world building 4E may not be the game for you." He said that before it was ever released. Cool. They accepted that they would lose some players for legitimate reasons. You should do the same. Now they have accepted that vastly more people than expected felt those legitamite reasons. You should do the same. [/QUOTE]

Verification