Quote from: Jeffrey Straszheim;220329But is he wrong?

Is he wrong that Melan hasn't read the core rulebook or that that fact alone makes a suitable argument?

The former: I don't know. Ask Melan.

The latter: yes, he is. Melan's argument or it's constituent statements and assumptions may be wrong (or any of the other folks he's tried to tar with that), but the fact that may not have read the books does not make it so. One can learn things about the game's founding philosophies, methods, techniques, and so forth, without reading the core books.

If Melan makes a point based on misunderstanding, Trev should be able to point it out. Otherwise, it's just an appeal to authority.

Quote from: SpinachatIt set out to be a 3D tactical fantasy game with simple rules and it does that job.

No, it set out to be a successor RPG to the granddaddy of RPGs. It says so right in the name, Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition Roleplaying Game. Are you really that much of a fucking Shill that you think they set out to make D&D 4e a tactical strategy game?

No, what they made is a terrible RPG, who's only redeeming fact is that it has detailed and interesting combat mechanics. They stole their basic design for that from Strange Synergy.

Quote from: Spinachcat;220225There are few opinions more illogical than spitting on something without any knowledge.  

Except for the opinions which proclaim awesomeness for something without critically thinking about it.

Quote from: KrakaJak;220341No, it set out to be a successor RPG to the granddaddy of RPGs. It says so right in the name, Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition Roleplaying Game. Are you really that much of a fucking Shill that you think they set out to make D&D 4e a tactical strategy game?

I think that was WotC's intention all along. It is clear that 4E considers miniatures and map tiles to be Core Material of the D&D brand game now (just look on the back of the Core books).

It is an effort to maximize profits by WotC, unfortunately for those who purchase a Role-Playing Game because it emphasizes role-playing, those customers are left wanting.

Quote from: jeff37923;220344Except for the opinions which proclaim awesomeness for something without critically thinking about it.

Well, come on, he's obviously having a lot of fun with the game, and I don't really see Mr. Spinachcat putting down other games by way of comparing them with 4e. If you go back to the earlier "guide" thread he posted (and others) he describes pretty much exactly what 4e is, and why he likes that. It's the people who assume that a given game is "everything for all tastes", or that their taste is the only one that matters, who are uncritical.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;220357Well, come on, he's obviously having a lot of fun with the game, and I don't really see Mr. Spinachcat putting down other games by way of comparing them with 4e. If you go back to the earlier "guide" thread he posted (and others) he describes pretty much exactly what 4e is, and why he likes that. It's the people who assume that a given game is "everything for all tastes", or that their taste is the only one that matters, who are uncritical.

Damnit man, this is the internet and here you go using logic and reason against me. It's most unfair, I say!

Then again, while its obvious that Spinichcat loves 4E, that doesn't mean that his positive view of 4E should be the only one in acceptance or that 4E detractors do not have equally valid points to make.

Burn that strawman jeff. he's got it coming.

Quote from: jeff37923;220361Then again, while its obvious that Spinichcat loves 4E, that doesn't mean that his positive view of 4E should be the only one in acceptance or that 4E detractors do not have equally valid points to make.

I'd say the pertinent point is how to identify whether the points are equally valid. If you tell me that 4e is is objectivly flawed, broken, or lacking in what it tries to deliver I will tell you you're full of shit. I, for example, have found absolutely no barriers to roleplaying in the way I have traditionally roleplayed in previous editions of DnD. This means that when someone posts that 4e isn't a roleplaying game, or that it's roleplaying element is flawed, or lacking, whatever, I will say that's bullshit, because I have played the game and found that for me it's completely untrue. If, however, someone wants to tell me that the saving throw mechanic is less than satisfactory because they seem to have pushed the simplicity angle a bit too far, I might could buy right into that. I can say with complete confidence that if ya wanna play a game that features twisted magic that destroys sanity and flirts with knowledge man was not meant to know, then DnD 4e is not for you. I did (and still do) like 3.x (and many other rpgs besides) for many reasons, but I also think that 4e really is a better fantasy superhero game.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;220332Is he wrong that Melan hasn't read the core rulebook or that that fact alone makes a suitable argument?

The former: I don't know. Ask Melan.

The latter: yes, he is. Melan's argument or it's constituent statements and assumptions may be wrong (or any of the other folks he's tried to tar with that), but the fact that may not have read the books does not make it so. One can learn things about the game's founding philosophies, methods, techniques, and so forth, without reading the core books.

If Melan makes a point based on misunderstanding, Trev should be able to point it out. Otherwise, it's just an appeal to authority.

If I have to read a book before I can level any judgement on it, how the hell am I ever supposed to decide on whether or not to buy a game in the first place?  Am I just supposed to buy every piece of crap that comes along?  

And if sources of information like this board are somehow insufficient to make such judgements, doesn't that inherently imply that we are then assuming that those who've bought and played the game previously, and shared their experience, are lying to us?  That when Spinachcat says the game is minis-focused to an extreme never before seen in D&D, I'm just suppsoed to ignore him because, well why exactly?

Probably the most damning evidence provided against 4e has been posts from it's fans and promoters honestly describing the nature of the game, not from it's detractors.  Are you saying that basing my opinion of the game one what said fans say is somehow wrong?  Should I just assume they're all liars?  Really?

Quote from: Sigmund;220381I'd say the pertinent point is how to identify whether the points are equally valid. If you tell me that 4e is is objectivly flawed, broken, or lacking in what it tries to deliver I will tell you you're full of shit. I, for example, have found absolutely no barriers to roleplaying in the way I have traditionally roleplayed in previous editions of DnD. This means that when someone posts that 4e isn't a roleplaying game, or that it's roleplaying element is flawed, or lacking, whatever, I will say that's bullshit, because I have played the game and found that for me it's completely untrue.

Just because 4E works for you and your taste in gaming doesn't mean that it works for everyone else. It just means that it works for you. 4E doesn't work for me.

QuoteI also think that 4e really is a better fantasy superhero game.

And if that was what I was looking for in the successor to the D&D brand name, then I wouldn't be saying that 4E doesn't scratch my gaming itch.

Quote from: J Arcane;220385If I have to read a book before I can level any judgement on it, how the hell am I ever supposed to decide on whether or not to buy a game in the first place?  Am I just supposed to buy every piece of crap that comes along?  

I don't recall anyone saying you have to buy a book and read it before you can talk about it. I definitely haven't said that. However, if you make claims that can be easily countered with a page number, expect to get called on it. If you opt to continue to make those allegations, expect to get laughed at.

QuoteAnd if sources of information like this board are somehow insufficient to make such judgements, doesn't that inherently imply that we are then assuming that those who've bought and played the game previously, and shared their experience, are lying to us?

They may not be lying. They may be going by the claims of others who haven't read the book, or who are lying. They may be relaying their personal opinions and having those opinions taken as objective truth because the reader hasn't read or played the game and doesn't know better. Or perhaps they read opinions and passed them on as truth because they didn't know better.

QuoteProbably the most damning evidence provided against 4e has been posts from it's fans and promoters honestly describing the nature of the game, not from it's detractors.  Are you saying that basing my opinion of the game one what said fans say is somehow wrong?  Should I just assume they're all liars?  Really?

Did anyone say that? I didn't reread the thread to check, but all I recall off hand is people pointing out that some of the OP's claims are verifiably untrue. At least to me, this thread has nothing to do with universal claims of who can talk about what and why, but of pointing out factual errors in a negative "report" about a game.

I'd do the same thing if someone posted that 2nd edition went to shit after Skills and Powers because for five build points you could make your character immune to weapon damage. I can't stand Skills and Powers, but I believe that if you're going to hate something you should at least base that hate in actual knowledge of the product.

Quote from: jeff37923;220393Just because 4E works for you and your taste in gaming doesn't mean that it works for everyone else. It just means that it works for you. 4E doesn't work for me.



And if that was what I was looking for in the successor to the D&D brand name, then I wouldn't be saying that 4E doesn't scratch my gaming itch.

Ok. None of that means 4e isn't a roleplaying game (and I'm not saying you specifically said that either Jeff). I'm sorry that 4e doesn't work for some of ya'all, but I'm glad I'm able to have fun with it. I've never claimed that just because 4e works for me that it works for everyone, that would be a silly thing to say about any game of any genre or platform anywhere ever, from baseball to risk to 4e to tiddlywinks to texas hold-em. What I find silly is for people to say that somehow 4e isn't an rpg. Just because it's not an rpg you (collective you) like, doesn't mean it's not an rpg. That, IMO, is not a valid point, let alone an equally valid point. If ya wanna talk about specific things about this particular rpg that you don't like then rock on. What James says about people who bitch about 4e with points that are inaccurate is a valid point. Detractors who, like you, say it just doesn't appeal to them, have valid points. CoC, WoD (new or old), and diceless games don't appeal to me, but you'll never find me saying they aren't rpgs, or that they "suck". That's all I'm saying.

Quote from: J Arcane;220385Probably the most damning evidence provided against 4e has been posts from it's fans and promoters honestly describing the nature of the game, not from it's detractors.

This has certainly been true for me. Reading those rpg.net threads made it clear 4E is not for me. Ten minutes browsing the actual book confirmed it.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;220439This has certainly been true for me. Reading those rpg.net threads made it clear 4E is not for me. Ten minutes browsing the actual book confirmed it.

That's pretty much exactly how it happened for me too.  It was Wizards' and it's fans descriptions that ultimately turned me off the game, and looking at the actual book only cemented my conclusions.

Quote from: J Arcane;220385Probably the most damning evidence provided against 4e has been posts from it's fans and promoters honestly describing the nature of the game, not from it's detractors.  Are you saying that basing my opinion of the game one what said fans say is somehow wrong?  Should I just assume they're all liars?  Really?

Heh. Tell me about it.

Over on TBP, there's a thread crowing victory about how the wizard has finally been put in it's place, and I comment on how poorly the 4e wizard would work in my campaign, and another fan stands up says how wrong I am to conclude such a thing based on what the rest of the fans have been saying. I'm like "you all settle this and get back to me when you decide if the wizard is nerfed or not."