While I was gone the debate raged on. Too often these things just descend into name calling so I'm pleased to see that everyone conducted themselves civilly. For those of you who haven't read it, Graham provided excellent counterpoints to my concerns regarding 4E over at his website. Thank you to all those who provided their own thoughts and opinions on the subject. We really got a good dialog going.
So often even an open forum such as this fails to change people's opinions because everyone is so entrenched in their own beliefs and fails to come to the discussion with an open mind. But as I said over at CriticalAnkleBites, While people may never agree on what constitutes a good system I do think that we could all do with a little more understanding and a lot more tolerance. I certainly feel more informed about 4th edition than in the past, with more insight than ever about why those who play it love it. Though gamers will likely never all agree that one system is best we are still on the same side on one issue. We all want the hobby to not only survive, but to thrive.
8 comments:
Thanks for staying civil yourself. I'm not interested in debate, I'm interested in discussion. This was a good one. Still, I encourage you to try out 4e under a vaguely-defined "good" DM, one who appreciates the system for what it is.
Remember, 4e characters are just as killable as in other systems. It's no fun 'till you're at one. For some fine examples of brutal 4e, I suggest checking out a fantastic 4e blog called Save Versus Death: http://saveversusdeath.wordpress.com/
Also, to be clear, I don't believe that 4e is "the" system. Not by a long shot. Nothing is "the" system. I play 4e, 1e, and S&W. I have the pathfinder book, haven't got to play it yet, though I really want to.
It's simply that I don't like it when someone dismisses a system as "flawed" by merely leafing through the source book once, whatever system we're talking about.
...and I appreciate a variety of systems too. It keeps the hobby from getting old and dull. And that IS what is important in the end.
...some just shouldn't be calling themselves D&D...it doesn't make them less fun in their own right...just sayin'...
Ciao!
Grendelwulf
@Grendelwulf -
Like it or not, 4e is, by definition, D&D. So are AD&D, 2e, 3e, OD&D, and Basic. The people with the power to do so decreed it as such.
If mechanical changes meant it was no longer D&D, then nothing has been D&D since OD&D. Not AD&D, not Basic, not 2e or 3e. So obviously what makes it D&D is the feel.
And many of us think it feels like the same D&D we've always played.
You may not agree. But that doesn't mean it isn't D&D. That just means it doesn't feel like D&D to you.
There is a very big difference here.
We aren't "delusional" (as you called us on the other thread), and you're gorram rude for implying such.
Fact is, 4e is D&D, and you and the minority who think it isn't don't get to decide that, thankfully. If you don't like that, tough cookies. Deal with it, stop going on about it, and let us have our fun playing the D&D we like. In return, we'll continue to let you have your fun playing whatever D&D you like.
I'm frakking sick of this argument. Honestly, if one of Labyrinthian's points had been "It's not D&D!", I would have stopped reading right there.
Did I not say that I appreciate a variety of game systems?
Don't get started on the "people with the power" because that has its own bad history attached.
Mechanical changes does make it different. You're right, other editions are no longer D&D as such. If many of you feel it is, fine. I am still entitles to my opinion, even if it is in the minority which I won't take your word that it is.
I didn't call YOU delusional. I believe I referred to the WotC designers as such because they are not brassy enough to call something new by a new name. Are you one of their designers? If so, then if you aren't delusional you are just a corporate lackey.
Because I voice an opinion that does not sync with yours soes not make me "gorram" anything. Sorry to pizz in your cereal.
I have had tougher cookies than what your baking here. And you don't "let" me & others play whatever version we like.
My last post was made to show an agreeable attitude towards you with a little italicized fun with my opinion. And you got your panties in a bunch. So, here's what you got as a result. Nyah-nyah. Now run & tell your mommy if you have to. Otherwise, let it go.
Ciao!
Grendelwulf
From the previous thread:
Scott: "Grendelwulf, the guys at WotC very much believe that 4e is D&D, as do a LOT of D&D players."
Grendelwulf: "So, they're delusional. Or simply don't have the backbone to call a new game a new game."
While you may not have meant it, you did indeed end up calling us delusional. Unintentionally rude, perhaps. But not knowing that, it was pretty insulting.
"as do a LOT of D&D players"
So I did. My bad afterall. Focused on the "guys at WotC" and lumped it all together.
For that insult, I apologise. I guess my milk & cookies weren't agreeing with me.
Ciao,
Grendelwulf
No worries. It's obvious now that you didn't mean it.
As for the "not D&D" argument above, it's a personal pet peeve of mine. Perhaps you have good reasons why you believe it doesn't feel like D&D to you, but I've seen it so many times as a broad, sweeping statement, that it's hard not to get annoyed when it comes up, without other arguments backing it up, as it always seems to.
For the record, I'm completely fine with the statement of "It doesn't feel like D&D to me". That's opinion.
But when it's stated that "4e is not D&D and shouldn't have been called such", then it's being stated as a fact, as though it's indisputable. (Combine that with the perceived insult from before, and I hope you understand why I was getting irritated, and assumed you were borderline-trolling.)
I'm happy that I was wrong.
Post a Comment