Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5998222" data-attributes="member: 87792">Then why don't you extend the same courtesy to 4e?&nbsp; Why is it one standard for a game which is basically a tabletop wargame with no scene resolution rules but a number of logistical rules (of course logistics, equipment, and morale having no place in a tabletop wargame), and the other standard for something that does have scene framing rules?&quot;2e is a wargame pretending to be a roleplaying game&quot;How does that not say things about 2e players such as when they are playing 2e they aren't actually playing a roleplaying game?&nbsp; And how is that not offensive?&nbsp;&quot;4e combat takes too long.&quot;&nbsp; That is a pure value judgement about how long you think things should take.&nbsp; &quot;2e has confusing mechanics like THAC0 and weapon vs armour type tables.&quot;&nbsp; That just says that the players of 2e have learned to deal with confusing mechanics.As a rule, don't say that something is something else.&nbsp; Nothing ever created has been perfect so there is room for criticism.&nbsp; But if you are going to reject the fundamental premises of something and say that it is not at all what it claims to be then you are rejecting any possibility of discernment in any way, shape, or form - rather than focussing on details that can be changed.&nbsp; Even the disassociated mechanics nonsense can lead to interesting outcomes because it is specific.You have different priorities to me.&nbsp; I'm not saying that 2e isn't a game for high fantasy. I'm not calling it something else.And every time you give that definition you demonstrate that conversation on the subject of D&amp;D is pointless.&nbsp; You are trying to devalue any opinion I have.&nbsp; So because you've taken the conversation outside civilised bounds I am going to make the conversation about civility until you stop trying to tear down any hope of conversation.&nbsp; Because after you've said that there are only three possible conversations on a D&amp;D site.&quot;4e isn't D&amp;D&quot;&quot;Then there's no point me talking to you.&nbsp; Goodbye.&quot;&quot;4e isn't D&amp;D.&quot;&quot;Yes it is.&quot;&quot;No it isn't.&quot;&quot;Yes it is.&quot;&quot;No it isn't.&quot;...&quot;4e isn't D&amp;D&quot;&quot;Stop trying to derail the conversation and exclude people.&quot;&quot;But it's what I believe.&quot;&quot;And?&nbsp; You're still trying to wreck the conversation.&quot;&quot;I have a right to say what I want.&quot;&quot;So do I.&nbsp; And what I want to say is that the consequence of saying what you want is to derail the conversation and end all possibility of productive discussion.&quot;Now, personally I'm going to opt for the third every time.&nbsp; Because that way, although it leads to annoying us both, you might actually either stop behaving in a way that makes conversation impossible or, and more commonly, prevent others being as impolite and impossible to talk to about certain matters as you are.&nbsp; None of the conversations is going to go anywhere productive because you've expressed an utter rejection of the people you are talking to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5998222, member: 87792"] Then why don't you extend the same courtesy to 4e? Why is it one standard for a game which is basically a tabletop wargame with no scene resolution rules but a number of logistical rules (of course logistics, equipment, and morale having no place in a tabletop wargame), and the other standard for something that does have scene framing rules? "2e is a wargame pretending to be a roleplaying game" How does that not say things about 2e players such as when they are playing 2e they aren't actually playing a roleplaying game? And how is that not offensive? "4e combat takes too long." That is a pure value judgement about how long you think things should take. "2e has confusing mechanics like THAC0 and weapon vs armour type tables." That just says that the players of 2e have learned to deal with confusing mechanics. As a rule, don't say that something is something else. Nothing ever created has been perfect so there is room for criticism. But if you are going to reject the fundamental premises of something and say that it is not at all what it claims to be then you are rejecting any possibility of discernment in any way, shape, or form - rather than focussing on details that can be changed. Even the disassociated mechanics nonsense can lead to interesting outcomes because it is specific. You have different priorities to me. I'm not saying that 2e isn't a game for high fantasy. I'm not calling it something else. And every time you give that definition you demonstrate that conversation on the subject of D&D is pointless. You are trying to devalue any opinion I have. So because you've taken the conversation outside civilised bounds I am going to make the conversation about civility until you stop trying to tear down any hope of conversation. Because after you've said that there are only three possible conversations on a D&D site. "4e isn't D&D" "Then there's no point me talking to you. Goodbye." "4e isn't D&D." "Yes it is." "No it isn't." "Yes it is." "No it isn't." ... "4e isn't D&D" "Stop trying to derail the conversation and exclude people." "But it's what I believe." "And? You're still trying to wreck the conversation." "I have a right to say what I want." "So do I. And what I want to say is that the consequence of saying what you want is to derail the conversation and end all possibility of productive discussion." Now, personally I'm going to opt for the third every time. Because that way, although it leads to annoying us both, you might actually either stop behaving in a way that makes conversation impossible or, and more commonly, prevent others being as impolite and impossible to talk to about certain matters as you are. None of the conversations is going to go anywhere productive because you've expressed an utter rejection of the people you are talking to. [/QUOTE]

Verification