And anyway Razz, what's wrong with games that 7 year olds can play straight away? It worries me you have so much anger in your life about this.It keeps him warm at night.
For some reason, I'm suddenly reminded of the Simpsons with the car powered by feelings of self-superiority. We could light a city with Razz's seething anger!
Free power for everyone! :P
Edit: What a curious post to start a new page!
On the other hand, I believe that 4th is as mentally stimulating as the previous edition plus the fact that is much simpler.
Is that how they are advertising it?
Their advertising department is annoying.When I read the advance book, Worlds and Monsters, it really felt as if the 6 planes were going to be the only game in town.
Later I learned that Ebberon and the other game worlds are going to be converted. They did relent on that point, possibly from pressure from thoes gaming groups. Now I hear that Sigil is going to be included, probably at the top of the infinite staircase.
If you want to play WOTC 4th edition, go ahead.
I personally can't stand the ring restriction, and the blooded rule seems to be a new complication not needed. Making all characters able to do the same thing seem as wrong headed as a character advancing Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, then Mage in an endless loop. It makes for a weaker character.
I have now decided that the game cosmos looks different from different perspectives. From The World there seems to be 6 mega planes. Sigal sees themselves as the center of the multiverse, and it is only from Sigal that you can reach the Outlands. Someone from The World can not Plane Shift to there no matter what. This gives back some control to the DM as to what game world they play in.
And anyway Razz, what's wrong with games that 7 year olds can play straight away? It worries me you have so much anger in your life about this.It keeps him warm at night.
Ah, like Ukko's gold in 'Slaine'.
|
On the other hand, I believe that 4th is as mentally stimulating as the previous edition plus the fact that is much simpler.
Is that how they are advertising it?
Their advertising department is annoying.When I read the advance book, Worlds and Monsters, it really felt as if the 6 planes were going to be the only game in town.
Later I learned that Ebberon and the other game worlds are going to be converted. They did relent on that point, possibly from pressure from thoes gaming groups. Now I hear that Sigil is going to be included, probably at the top of the infinite staircase.If you want to play WOTC 4th edition, go ahead.
I personally can't stand the ring restriction, and the blooded rule seems to be a new complication not needed. Making all characters able to do the same thing seem as wrong headed as a character advancing Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, then Mage in an endless loop. It makes for a weaker character.I have now decided that the game cosmos looks different from different perspectives. From The World there seems to be 6 mega planes. Sigal sees themselves as the center of the multiverse, and it is only from Sigal that you can reach the Outlands. Someone from The World can not Plane Shift to there no matter what. This gives back some control to the DM as to what game world they play in.
Huzzah. *claps*
This emphasizes the point that I was trying to make earlier. Maybe 4th edition will be better, maybe not, but the marketting is almost deliberatly misleading slash aggravating due to its oversimplification, of what may already be a grossly dumbed down product.On the other hand, I am not arguing that D&D has to be rocket science either. But Accessability due to Simplification is a very arguably skewed methodology. We don't build homes with legos just because they're easier to grasp. We build the best home one can, while still keeping a standardized but complex method so that most can inhabit with maximum quality, while some can continue to create with something deeper than basic understanding.
Hopefully this will not lead to a seething chasm of further castigation, but rather enlighten from a viewpoint of considered speculation and some degree of restraint, if not objectivity.
I look at debates like this and am reminded of Xbox 360 vs PS3 fanboyism.
Hmm? When did the GH cosmology because the standard for ALL D&D worlds?
The Great Ring definitely wasn't the default cosmology for Mystara, neither was it for FR 3E (that had a weird Tree structure), Darksun basically ignored it, Dragonlance only had two planes, Birthright heavily changed it as well. It also doesn't really make much sense with Spelljamming (why invest anything in spelljamming when portals are much easier, I always thought PS was a kick in the pants to SJ).
Really, looking at 2E's campaign worlds, I think only FR and GH actually used the Great wheel.
The blame must be placed, I'm afraid, with the PS setting. It posed the idea of the Great Wheel as the de facto planar alignment, and absorbed other settings no matter their initial setup (prime mages were simply misinformed if their worlds planar alignment differed, or perhaps were under the affect of some strange magic blocking travel.) Nearly all settings were mentioned at one point or another in PS materials, a source of complaint from non-PS fans who thought this diluted their settings if I remember correctly.
In 3E this decision was labeled as a mistake by the designers, and you can see that from both FR's and Eberron's different planar structure. Still, they kept the PS planar outlook for their general Manual of the Plane releases, which only further confused matters. Was there or wasn't there an assumed overarching planar structure?
I'd say there was not in 3E and nor will there be in 4E but you can probably site quotes supporting both sides from WotC. I favor the "other interpretations are possible" camp (which was always my understanding of PS anyway, but that point seemed to get ignored often ... remember all the maps of the Great Wheel were supposedly inaccurate and prone to revision based on who you asked), but then I think that camp overlaps a deal with the "I am positive in looking to 4E" camp.
Cheers! :)
...As representatives of 4th Ed. have stated, they wanted to make the rules clean and effortless for the players. I think this is the problem... Agree? Disagree?
I think I agree.
I think the 4/e rules (at least the way they've been portrayed to date, and several playtesters have offered similar opinions) equip each class so carefully that solving in-game problems won't take imagination, cleverness, and cooperation -- you just use the no-brainer powers with which each class comes equipped.
If true, my players won't enjoy 4/e. Perhaps some will.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers! :P
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers! :P
David, I have ask...if only because you seem like an insightful fellow, and have at least parsed your conversations intelligently. Is that statement a commentary directed at Logos or everyone else on this thread?
Becuase, despite a few raw or rude commentaries from both those who like 4e or don't, this thread seems to be a decent forum for discussion. I apologize if I am missing your point that it was intended as cute sarcasm.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers! :PDavid, I have ask...if only because you seem like an insightful fellow, and have at least parsed your conversations intelligently. Is that statement a commentary directed at Logos or everyone else on this thread?
Becuase, despite a few raw or rude commentaries from both those who like 4e or don't, this thread seems to be a decent forum for discussion. I apologize if I am missing your point that it was intended as cute sarcasm.
No offense meant, I was just being silly. Logos's comment about the stupid newbs winning the edition wars simply struck me as funny.
Cheers! :)
No offense meant, I was just being silly. Logos's comment about the stupid newbs winning the edition wars simply struck me as funny.
Cheers! :)
Ahh, I figured as much. I had much the same sentiment...thanks for the clarification. :-)
...Oh well, Cry away grognards, Just remember, Its us stupid newbs that won the edition war!
I guess you missed the post on refraining from personal attacks.
My posts, inane though they may be, are meant to express my reservations, skepticism, and objections. I neither think nor suggest there's something wrong with people who disagree with me.
I'm sorry there's something wrong with people who disagree with you.
Regards.
David:
For the record, I appreciate and respect your comments, and I certainly don't think you've been (at any point) insulting to anyone.
I've been off the boards for a while, and the information about campaign settings is new and welcome news to me, and more encouraging than I've let on.
Regards.
...As representatives of 4th Ed. have stated, they wanted to make the rules clean and effortless for the players. I think this is the problem... Agree? Disagree?I think I agree.
I think the 4/e rules (at least the way they've been portrayed to date, and several playtesters have offered similar opinions) equip each class so carefully that solving in-game problems won't take imagination, cleverness, and cooperation -- you just use the no-brainer powers with which each class comes equipped.
If true, my players won't enjoy 4/e. Perhaps some will.
Tatterdemalion, what from the playtests has given you this impression?
And, I'm serious about this because I keep seeing this argument come up and I just don't understand it.
What is making you afraid that the simplicity of the rules is going to somehow ruin the game by removing desision making, roleplaying, and tactics from D&D?
Are far as I can tell, only the basic system rules for attacks, saves, and the basic combat options have significantly been simplified. This means that everything works in a very similair way, and the system over all is very easy to understand, but that there are so many varied and different powers and feats available right from the start that I beleive that 4th edition is going to significantly improve the quality and quantity of roleplaying and tactics in the game.
I mean, my friend Kurt took one look at the first level fighter powers and said "I want to play 4th." The options and powers available to the fighter, like being able to force people to fight him instead of the wizard and getting a free bull rush effect with a shield bash effect, this was the sort of thing he'd been begging for all through out 3rd edition.
My friends and I saw the new powers as something that would truely expand the way we played, and break us out of the monotony of normal D&D combat. We're already in an era where "Use my strongest attack" is pretty much the only choice people make. Especially for the melee types who basicly have one option: attack with best weapon available.
Am I simply misunderstanding you here? Why do you think having a lot of powers and feats will lead to less choices?
Thanks Tats! You're not so bad yourself (except for that bit of bad taste about disliking 4E :P)
The news about reviving some past settings is pretty cool. Hopefully they'll pop out some of my favorites (and being a little too young to have been around for the original Greyhawk, I'd sure like to figure out what it was all about ...)
Cheers! :)
The board ate my post so I'll try again.
The guy who runs the comic book store at the mall said that all the people who played first through 3.5 said they hated what they know about 4.0. He said only people who never played D&D are ordering the core books.
Note that this is one store in the Delaware Valley.
It does not take into account internet orders.
One member of the gaming group I play with is going to order it just to find out if there is anything he can use. Possibly to find fault with it.
Is 4.0 more popular in some other parts of the country?
4.0 tend to tell customers what they can and cannot do, as far as items, alignment, classes, races, ect.
It moves away from party cooperation, with everyone able to use rogue skills and healing.
Is this more popular in other parts of the country?
Thanks Tats! You're not so bad yourself (except for that bit of bad taste about disliking 4E :P)
I'm just a grumpy old curmudgeon who gets angry at change :P
Truth is, I really do hope I'm wrong and others are right. I've been playing D&D (on and off) for a long time (late 70s). Until now, I've loved every new version that's come out. Maybe in six months' time I'll like 4/e also.
And, as I've said elsewhere, a good, faithful comeback for Greyhawk would have me back in a heartbeat, checkbook in hand. Yeah, I'm a whore -- I've learned to live with it :P
Lol. Try to get involved with a playtest. ENWorld has gathered enough material to put together a preview player's handbook, and has actually put together a handful of fairly decent preview modules to run playtests with. It gives you a much better feel of the game, and at least for me, helped put a lot of things I didn't like the concept of into a better light.
Cheers! :)
The guy who runs the comic book store at the mall said that all the people who played first through 3.5 said they hated what they know about 4.0. He said only people who never played D&D are ordering the core books.
I've played D&D since AD&D 1/e. I would suggest that it would be perfectly natural for people that know only one version of a well-loved game (or anything else) to be averse to change.
I've seen Basic D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2/e, 3.0, 3.5, and enough optional rules for each of them to choke a herd of horses. I've seen some four versions of Traveller, Call of Cthulhu Chaosium & d20, World of Darkness done at least three times, about four Star Trek RPGs, and more. I can handle change.
But for some reason, 4/e is the most upsetting overhaul I've seen (it's actually the only one to upset me). I can give some reasons, but it's still a bit puzzling and odd.
Just a couple of random thoughts. I don't think there's a point, and I'm not claiming to be wiser, better informed, more experienced, or any better-qualified in my opinions.
Regards all :)
The board ate my post so I'll try again.
The guy who runs the comic book store at the mall said that all the people who played first through 3.5 said they hated what they know about 4.0. He said only people who never played D&D are ordering the core books.
Note that this is one store in the Delaware Valley.
It does not take into account internet orders.
One member of the gaming group I play with is going to order it just to find out if there is anything he can use. Possibly to find fault with it.
Is 4.0 more popular in some other parts of the country?
4.0 tend to tell customers what they can and cannot do, as far as items, alignment, classes, races, ect.
It moves away from party cooperation, with everyone able to use rogue skills and healing.
Is this more popular in other parts of the country?
I disagree with 4th Edition telling you what you can/cannot do. If anything, many people looked at alignments in terms of defining their characters actions (you cant do that because you are Good, you cant do that because you are Evil, etc).
Nothing that I've seen appears to be restricting at all to races or classes. If anything, while classes seem to be much more clearly defined, flexibility is still there in terms of multiclassing. Not that classes really lost a whole lot, but those that didnt have much to begin with should have a clear place (bard and monk, for example).I also disagree on lack of party cooperation. Maybe you are referring to the fact that in 3rd Edition, often only one character is effective at the use of a skill (Knowledge, Spellcraft, or Disable Device), meaning that some challenges hinge on the success/failure of that one character's roll. I wouldnt call that cooperation, however.
I think that 4th Edition makes the party far more cooperative than before, since various class powers can affect other characters (paladin's healing attack, cleric's shield of faith, probably most warlord powers).
Even some racial features do this (the elf's group bonus to Perception, half-elf's racial feat that grants a group bonus to Insight and Initiative)).
Finally, skill challenges allow everyone to contribute to a problem, instead of having everyone hang back and watching one guy do it all (or fail).
When a stranger upsets us, we walk away.
When a loved one upsets up, we're hurt, but eventually forgive them.
Let 4E back into your heart. ;)
Cheers! :)
PS: I assume that third version of WoD is the d20 version? I was looking at it in the store yesterday but wasn't too sure ... can you recommend it?
... I blame the internet, because I'm sure there was as much ill-feeling ...
Surely you know that after pornography and pointless arguments, FUD is the third highest export of the Internet!
Cheers! :)
... I blame the internet, because I'm sure there was as much ill-feeling ...Surely you know that after pornography and pointless arguments, FUD is the third highest export of the Internet!
Cheers! :)
Not lolcats?
Lol. Try to get involved with a playtest. ENWorld has gathered enough material to put together a preview player's handbook, and has actually put together a handful of fairly decent preview modules to run playtests with. It gives you a much better feel of the game, and at least for me, helped put a lot of things I didn't like the concept of into a better light.
Cheers! :)
I ran one playtest after D&D XP, when we had the character sheets and kobold stats. It wasnt the actual Scalegloom Hall adventure, but was an arrangement of dungeon tiles and small clusters of kobolds.
This simple session illustrated how much faster and smoother the game runs, even though we'd just gotten into the rules. It was a lot of fun, even for me as a DM, since I got to run amok with my own party of monsters and do creative and fun things with them besides get surrounded and killed.There is an interview on Enworld that also helps explain some stuff about hit points and saving throws. In particular, the bit on saving throws helped clarify some things for myself: the saving throw mechanic isnt like saving throws at all, but more of a duration-resolution.
The Defenses are like your saves, while the saving throw tells you when it ends, instead of having the DM randmoly rolling a die to determine how long an effect lasts, or otherwise keeping you out of the game for the entire combat (as can happen with paralysis and other things).
Not lolcats?... I blame the internet, because I'm sure there was as much ill-feeling ...Surely you know that after pornography and pointless arguments, FUD is the third highest export of the Internet!
Cheers! :)
I thought the Internet imported those from China?
Edit: Antioch, I agree. We ran three playtests (Escape from Sembia, which took two sessions to finish, and then Return of the Burning Plague, which they almost finished in one) and I think everyone had fun. Even the more negative group members were reduced to mostly grumbling about the system (the grognard spirit was strong in them!)
Balanced? Hardly. Rant? Definitely.
I see two forces at work since the announcement and release of 4e:
Group One - Gamers who, at some point in the process, have embraced the idea of 4e. They like the game and have a hard time understanding why others don't like it as much as they do. When someone voices disdain for 4e, they demand that the poster qualify his or her feelings. If the poster supports his opinion, he's invariably shouted down with cries of "you obviously haven't played it... " or "you haven't really given it a chance" or "your opinion is flawed and therefore irrelevant." This group has even launched a massive charm offensive in the days following 4e's release, especially now that Necro has opted out and Pathfinder is picking up steam. Bad blood seems to be brewing within this group. I have even noticed that slightly critical comments made about 4e on the wizards boards are met with swift and sharp comments from the moderators. Feels like they're circling the wagons.
Group Two - Gamers who, for one reason or another, have decided not to pursue 4e as their primary game of choice. Their decision has isolated them somehwhat, especially to communities that embrace the OGL. While not eager to see the collapse of Wotc, this group doesn't see a need to support 4e in order to preserve the D&D brand. I suppose I fit into this group more than the second one.
More and more 4e's release is feeling like the reformation, with players choosing up sides based on what edition they prefer. Sure, it's no different than any other edition war over the years, but I've never remembered it being this contentious. Maybe I'm not really paying attention anymore due to my age and responsibilities, but it feels different. The boards feel different. Comments feel different. People seem to have made their choices and now the separate camps have fortified their outer perimeters.
Does that bode well for the game? To behonest, I'm not sure, but the blowback from 4e has been fierce and something tells me this debate will only continue to fester til things go from bad to worse.
I think I have finally pinpointed the hesitancy I have to 4th Edition. I was initially curious, but slowly disenchanted as more information has been released.
As representatives of 4th Ed. have stated, they wanted to make the rules clean and effortless for the players. I think this is the problem.
When Gygax (RIP) and Arneson created what eventually became D&D they created a game to fulfill a role (ie. "let's simulate a medieval setting focused on combat, what rules do we need...what if magic is involved...what if someone does X or Y..."). The end result was a series of oddball rules designed to serve an open-ended purpose so that players could try to do anything and eventually live another life in another world (I liken this to codified rules to children's pretend games). I felt 3.X was an improvement on this. This is a design-down philosophy, in which the goal - anything is possible - is set first and then the method devised. The rules exist to keep everything fair and consistent, to manage expected outcomes and ensure everyone has fun regardless of their choices in game.
4th Edition seems (from the designers admission) to have been a design-up philosophy (make up good rules, then watch the outcome). Sure it might be the best game ever made, it might be balanced, fast and easy and never confuse anyone, and it might, just might, be really fun to play...
But if I want to play a well-planned game, I can play chess. In chess the rules come first, there is no extraneous result. This is why I feel 4th Ed. does not "feel" like D&D, because it was not planned as D&D, it was planned as a game.
Agree? Disagree?
I agree, and I think you've very clearly nailed why I, having read the rules, won't be playing 4E. I've been playing D&D since 1E (i.e. AD&D), and have heretofore always kept up with the latest edition. I fully anticipated doing so with 4E, and pre-ordered the three core rulebooks and the first adventure. When I read them, however, I found I wasn't interested in playing the game described therein - which, as you note, doesn't "feel" like D&D. I think this is because, for me, playing D&D has always been about trying to recreate the feel of some classic fantasy fiction - but where YOU are the HERO! So I find I'm not really inspired by dragonborn or warlords. More importantly, though, I believe that a wizard casting spells should feel very different from a fighter engaging in combat manoeuvres. There was a certain amount of standardisation and rationalisation of the rules in 3E, compared with previous editions, but this has been carried much further in 4E, and it seems to have washed out the flavour that draws me to D&D.
I'd just like to say that I think a lot of what Group One's anger is centered around the fact that people aren't supporting the game and are just being sticklers because they don't like change.
Nothing could be further from the truth in my case, and it sounds like in Callum's case too. When I saw 4th, I saw a game that I would enjoy less as a roleplaying game than what the Pathfinder RPG is going to be.
I don't begrudge the 4th Edition crowd anything, the same way I don't begrudge people playing Shadowrun, or people playing GURPS, or people playing Vampire, or people playing Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Play what makes you happy and I'll do the same.
But in fact, if I do look at 4th Edition as a different game entirely, I could very well enjoy it. But the way D&D has historically been played fulfills a fantasy in a way that 4th Edition does not. It's not a political or anti-WotC thing, it's a personal preference.
True and I'm not trying to persuade you into buying it. I'm trying to help myself understand why someone cares about the marketing of the product when all he can do is check it through some friend (when it is published) or convension thus having a more clear view whether he likes it.
The game isn't mystically entitled to my money just because its got D&D on its cover. I don't see anyone telling me I have to buy Vampire or GURPS or Alternity before I can decide I don't need them. Why is 4e any different?
IMO I've played ealier systems of D&D, 3.5 was very different from AD&D but I liked it( generally) and I want to know if its worth spending my free time playing, finding out whether it's a platform to Roleplay.
3.5 had a number of very distinct holes from my perspective, Cleric( could be very overpowered in Melee at later levels), Wizards( Very overpowered at ranged), Rogues( Backstab was ridiculously lethal). Each of these left the other characters( fighter especially) very much as secondary characters.So the 4th ed view making Fighters have Martial Powers, Clerics aiding Powers, Wizards blast\area effect powers etc gives me a lot to look forward to but the proof is in the pudding. I'm tweaking the skills system because I found the same System in Star Wars Saga ed and it was lacking in character variety but I think I've got that in hand.
If I run a campaign to 20th or 30th level and find the game unweildy, dull, lacking roleplaying options due to rules then I'll let you know.
I love how somehow the anti 4th edition people are being nice and unbiased when they use the most innane arguments ( That working poorly together is better than working well together because of side benefits, the "we don't really know what 4th edition will be like because we don't have the text, dispite having a fairly large chunks of text and numerous excerts, and a fairly comprehensive overview of the whole system, 4th edition is dumb dah) while repeatedly putting down people who like 4th edition (and this is what they are doing when they are comparing 4th edition to the lowest common denominator and idiocracy) and then crying whenever someone contra to their position points it out (as per original posts).
Oh well, Cry away grognards, Just remember, Its us stupid newbs that won the edition war!
Logos
Heh ... isn't that rather like a Nazi declaring WWII 'won' after the fall of Poland?
The early sales (poor Poland) were always going to be good ... however the forces of light are gathering. People have seen the way the wind is blowing ... the war is far from over yet. ;-)
|
I have even noticed that slightly critical comments made about 4e on the wizards boards are met with swift and sharp comments from the moderators.
...and the "feel" of my mainly supported game company has changed too. For that reason, many have stopped purchasing their products. When many of us continue to hear that the wotc's censorship has gotten even stronger, this echos the message that they're still not listening.
Heh ... isn't that rather like a Nazi declaring WWII 'won' after the fall of Poland?The early sales (poor Poland) were always going to be good ... however the forces of light are gathering. People have seen the way the wind is blowing ... the war is far from over yet. ;-)
I think you are expecting newbs to have actually learned history.
;-)
I love how somehow the anti 4th edition people are being nice and unbiased when they use the most innane arguments ( That working poorly together is better than working well together because of side benefits, the "we don't really know what 4th edition will be like because we don't have the text, dispite having a fairly large chunks of text and numerous excerts, and a fairly comprehensive overview of the whole system, 4th edition is dumb dah) while repeatedly putting down people who like 4th edition (and this is what they are doing when they are comparing 4th edition to the lowest common denominator and idiocracy) and then crying whenever someone contra to their position points it out (as per original posts).
Oh well, Cry away grognards, Just remember, Its us stupid newbs that won the edition war!
Logos
Heh ... isn't that rather like a Nazi declaring WWII 'won' after the fall of Poland?
The early sales (poor Poland) were always going to be good ... however the forces of light are gathering. People have seen the way the wind is blowing ... the war is far from over yet. ;-)
Oh great....
First off I consider myself a Grognard for a couple of reasons. I was one of those war gamers back in the 70's and 80's that pushed lead figures around on a battlefield of my own making and I first played Dungeons and Dragons using the first edition in my junior high cafeteria before school. I was like on of those kids in ET playing D&D in my kitchen ok.
So this whole edition wars just turns my stomach. I happen to like 4E and I am excited about playing it. That doesn't mean that I think 3.0 or 3.5 or 3.75 or what ever version of D&D a piece of camel dung. I wouldn't have played it for the past 30 years if I didn't like it.
There is no war to be won ok. Why should there be? We are all gamers under the skin, right?
And to be lumped into the Nazi occupation Poland kinds ticks me off too.
So quit kicking each other in the gonads and start talking about things that really matter.....like should I use Orcus as the BBEG in my next campaign or should I run a Warlock in my next game (which ever edition you prefer of coarse).
;)
You know I really wouldn't mind moving on, but you see more or less all the posts in the 4th edition forum (which i limit myself to, out of a quest of good naturedness and not pooping in other peoples and edition's cornflakes) is constantly full of people bemoaning 4th edition, people posting anecdotle evidence that 4th edition is doing poorly, people saying hey this is different and SUCKS and stuff like that.
Its great to call for unity, but lets face it we don't have it and we wont as long as 3.x people cling to the claim that they are the "real" dnd (which not everyone is , i'm refering to those who do)
The reason it won't die is becasue nobody wants to drop their feelings of "I'm so offended". Get the frak over it. They disagree with you; you disagree with them. If you wwant them to stop whining, don't engage and thus enrage them. Stop picking at the damn scab and move on; otherwise your claim that you "wouldn't mind moving on" is just a way to continue a pissing contest that will never be decided. They think 4e is not d&d; you think it is. It's not going to change by you *bemoaning* the issue.
And btw ... egging them on by stating things you *know* will enrage them is disingenuous and beneath adult levels of discourse.
Its great to call for unity, but lets face it we don't have it and we wont as long as 3.x people cling to the claim that they are the "real" dnd (which not everyone is , i'm refering to those who do)
The fault goes both way. At this point, in most forums I go to (including WotC) the pro-4E people are as bad or worse than the anti-4E people ever were.