|
And I think Crosswiremind should do like a lot of peoples who can't stand those type of irrational argumentation/complaints: Ignore them and stay far from those post (as I would do starting right now)...
I would do that but then the conversation would be dominated by statements of irrational or unfounded prejudice towards 4E. If the voices of reason are shouted down then there is nothing left but an environment of speculation and hyperbole. What good is that?
Phew, good thing you're here to save us from idiocy, then! Thank the gods you've come to temper the debate. </sarcasm>
"The voice of reason"? Really? You can't be serious... :) The people who are criticising 4e have many years of information backing up what we already know, and using the information released thus far for 4e to point out what we see as problems (and, on rare occasions, neat ideas that can work just as well in the 3.x ruleset). You and the other 4e apologists have *nothing* to go on except the exact same information and faith(1). Heck, DangerDwarf constantly argues in favour of 4e and he doesn't even play 3.x! He's still playing 2e (and more power to him if that's what he enjoys, I know I always liked that system, too).
You are hardly the voice of reason - you just seem to enjoy arguing, and have even argued yourself in a couple of circles. If you're just being devil's advocate, that's one thing. If you're being antagonistic, that's something totally different. Then you live under a bridge and give goats a hard time.
And "irrational or unfounded prejudice" applies both directions, my friend. You can have "irrational or unfounded prejudice" *in favour* of 4e in the exact same way, which is how it looks from here.
(1) Faith: belief that is not based on proof
|
|
Heck, DangerDwarf constantly argues in favour of 4e and he doesn't even play 3.x!
Which invalidates me. =(
Absolutely not, and I am sorry that I did make it seem that way. However, it should definitely be considered when you're making your points. This entire discussion is basically 3.x vs 4.0, and you don't have the years of experience that many people who are commenting do have with 3.x. It makes your defense of 4e even stranger, unless you're just doing it because WotC had the audacity in the first place to bring out 3.x and replace 2e, and you want to transfer that anger onto people who liked 3.x and now don't like 4e (you have said something to the effect of "anything is better than 3e").... It makes little sense for you to think that the same company that developed a system you seem to dislike so much (3.x) would do any better with a new edition which seems to move even farther from 2e. I obviously can't know your motives at all, but your defense of 4e confuses me (while your dislike of 3e doesn't).
I guess I'm just confused about where you're coming from in your position.
When I see someone misrepresenting something then I'm going to come out and say they're wrong. That's my personal standpoint. I don't think that anyone should have a monopoly on speaking their mind. A discussion needs several viewpoints after all.
Perhaps the fact that I'm a light-hearted person in RL doesn't come across very well on these boards as well as it does on others I frequent; if so, then apologies. I tend to try to format my posts as though I'm having a discussion with friends down the pub (and we debate things fervently!) so it may be that something is lost in translation. I don't bear anyone any ill will.
|
I too find it strange that a year ago I was the one smacktalking WotC and now it seems the role has been reversed.
I guess it boils down to me being curious about 4e will bring to the table. It sounds kind of interesting to me. Will it replace C&C or AD&D for me? Nah, prolly not. Will it be an enjoyable game? I think it might.
I suppose my position is that while I don't consider 3e D&D, it hasn't stopped me from playing D&D (AD&D and C&C). So all the doom and gloom being put out about 4eand how it is "killing" D&D makes me shake my head. My favored systems have fallen to the side but I still play with a fervor.
BUT. I was the same doom and gloomer before too. So *shrug* people are strange critters.
I do see folks that seem to hate aspects of 4e for no other reason than it is 4e, even if it is a good idea. And part of me can think, "Hey! I used to be that guy!" and in some respects I still am (in regards to 3e).
Bottom line, I support 4e becasue it sounds like it could be a good game. Different, most definitely, but still probably enjoyable. Am I full of contradictions? Most definitely. =D
Blaaaaarrrph
Such insight and erudition -- thank you ;)
|
"The voice of reason"? Really? You can't be serious... :) The people who are criticising 4e have many years of information backing up what we already know, and using the information released thus far for 4e to point out what we see as problems (and, on rare occasions, neat ideas that can work just as well in the 3.x ruleset).
Ok. You got me. I have not played the game since 1976. I have not read a lick of the 4E info from Wizards or EN World. I have been making it all up. I am not even a gamer. In fact I am just a figment of your imagination. I smell soap cooking.
You and the other 4e apologists have *nothing* to go on except the exact same information and faith(1). Heck, DangerDwarf constantly argues in favour of 4e and he doesn't even play 3.x! He's still playing 2e (and more power to him if that's what he enjoys, I know I always liked that system, too).
No, not faith. I place no faith in any human endeavor. I am just not prejudicial towards WotC and therefore do not read deep and evil subtext into every press release and article about 4E.
You are hardly the voice of reason - you just seem to enjoy arguing, and have even argued yourself in a couple of circles. If you're just being devil's advocate, that's one thing. If you're being antagonistic, that's something totally different. Then you live under a bridge and give goats a hard time.
Or, perhaps I represent the counterpoint to the chants of "WotC killed my dog!"
And "irrational or unfounded prejudice" applies both directions, my friend. You can have "irrational or unfounded prejudice" *in favour* of 4e in the exact same way, which is how it looks from here.
Dude - have you actually read any of my posts where I point out all of the things about 4E that actually bug me? I guess you missed those.
Ok. You got me. I have not played the game since 1976. I have not read a lick of the 4E info from Wizards or EN World. I have been making it all up. I am not even a gamer. In fact I am just a figment of your imagination. I smell soap cooking.
Nice reference! (at least I think that's a Fight Club reference)
Just thought I'd interject with that. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program...
|
|
Ok. You got me. I have not played the game since 1976. I have not read a lick of the 4E info from Wizards or EN World. I have been making it all up. I am not even a gamer. In fact I am just a figment of your imagination. I smell soap cooking.
Nice reference! (at least I think that's a Fight Club reference)
Just thought I'd interject with that. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program...
I am Jack's over stuffed dice bag.
|
|
No, not faith. I place no faith in any human endeavor. I am just not prejudicial towards WotC and therefore do not read deep and evil subtext into every press release and article about 4E.
So by saying that someone who has a contrary opinion is prejudiced you try to invalidate their actual concern. It's like calling me racist if I don't like someone who's Mexican (even if the fact he's Mexican has nothing to do with why I don't like him). As Hank Hill said... "Why can't I hate a man just for who he is?" Why can't I dislike some of the changes being made without being called prejudiced against WotC?
And "irrational or unfounded prejudice" applies both directions, my friend. You can have "irrational or unfounded prejudice" *in favour* of 4e in the exact same way, which is how it looks from here.
Dude - have you actually read any of my posts where I point out all of the things about 4E that actually bug me? I guess you missed those.
I've read all the posts in this section of the forums for a little while. On occasion you do find something you don't like, which is fine, but a lot of the people who aren't liking what they're hearing about 4e have also found something, somewhere, that we do like and think would be a worthwhile addition to a 3.x game.
I guess all I'm asking is that you not claim to be "the voice of reason" so as to insult and belittle anyone who disagrees with you on no other basis than that we disagree with you.
Anyway, nice Fight Club reference. :)
|
|
So by saying that someone who has a contrary opinion is prejudiced you try to invalidate their actual concern.
Contrary opinions are great. I have great respect for the folks that present reasoned points of view.
The problem I have is with those who would rather simply demonize WotC than actually take the time to understand what is being said and done by them.
It is the knee jerk reaction that concerns me - both pro and anti-WotC. Disagreement is great. Any great discussion requires disagreement if we are to reach any meaningful conclusion.
What happens here is not conducive to great discussion. Emotions here run way too high.
I guess all I'm asking is that you not claim to be "the voice of reason" so as to insult and belittle anyone who disagrees with you on no other basis than that we disagree with you.
I still do not see how I have insulted anyone. If you are referring to my analysis of certain posts as less than rational argumentation then I am sorry to those that took that personally. Those that hate WotC and 4E tend to make points from a place of negative emotion and not from a rational analysis of facts.
That is the heart of the problem.
Anyway, nice Fight Club reference. :)
Thanks - one of the best films ever in my opinion.