Quote from: jeff37923;683433Guys, if 4E was as awesome and wonderful as it is being reported to have been then why has the compony that published it declared it a failure and is coming out with a new version of D&D to replace it?

It did not make enough money to please the Hasbro corporate masters.

This is a concept you understand.  You understand that Firefly was a good TV show that did not make enough money to please its Fox masters.  You understand that The Wizard of Oz was a good movie that did not make enough to please its MGM masters.  This concept, that something can be both good AND not make sufficient profit to please a larger corporation, is not new to you.  It's a concept you completely understand - right up until it's about a product you don't personally like.  And then, all of a sudden, it seems like a good argument to you.  Gee, I wonder why that might be?

4e was a fine RPG.  It's not my favorite version of D&D anymore, but it was a fine RPG.  The fact that it didn't make enough profit to please Hasbro is not, in itself, proof it was a bad product.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682376Exactly.  Love or hate D&D as a game, there are certain things that made it what it was.  When you turn all of that on its head and effectively rewrite a completely different game, it no longer feels like D&D to me.  That, IMO, is one of the biggest flaws of 4e.  Sure, might be a great tactical RPG on it's own right, but it never had the D&D feel that made D&D what it was for 30 years prior.

That's the same thing that I hear in "real life" over and over.  I don't think it's discussed much at rpgnet because it's viewed as edition warring and is likely to draw a ban.  In fact, several very common criticisms of 4e (such as disassociated mechanics) are also grounds for banning, because one or more of the moderators decided that it wasn't true or valid.

I can understand, in principle, why that site wanted to bar edition warring.  But the result, I'm afraid, is that popular criticism of 4e has been stifled.  If so, then it's no wonder that we see posters over there scratching their heads, wondering why nationwide polls with many thousands of participants consistently lean in the opposite direction from the predominant opinions on the big purple subforum.

That sort of thing happens when you screw with freedom of expression.

So, instead we are told that the polls are wrong, or badly worded or that the people participating in them aren't really potential consumers.  This is the "denial phase" of the grief process.

It's also a sad reminder for internet forum celebrities that they aren't really as celebrated as they think they are, in the bigger scheme of things.

Quote from: 1989;683542Anyone defending 4e is automatically the loser.

:rotfl: Says the 2e fan! :rotfl:

2e did losing right.  2e fans were the red headed stepchildren for decades.  Your suffering showed the 4e fans how it's done.  You being the bully now to 4e fans in response to decades of being bullied by fans of 1e and 3e and other games would be fucking hilarious, if it weren't tinged with sadness.

Naw...it's still fucking hilarious.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683485"4e powers do not replicate spell effects, so that entire argument if false!"

"Here you are."

"Well, not spells that are in 4e anyway...."

:facepalm


Especially when we're talking about what should go into Next, and is not 4e specific.

So, you just keep lying on top of your lying.

Everyone here remembers the context of what you said.  You said IT WAS NOT YOUR OPINION YOU WERE QUOTING, BUT THE QUOTING OF *4E* EXPERTS.  You argued that loud and proud.  It was utterly, bloody obvious you were saying that a 4e expert said that in 4e, 4e spells were being replicated by 4e mundane powers, because you claimed to be quoting people who were 4e experts speaking about the 4e rules.  It was the heart of your criticism that this meant that 4e was a stupid game, that mundane powers would replicate other non-mundane spells in that game.  None of this had anything to do with their knowledge of prior games.  The idea that you thought those 4e experts were talking about 2e spells - spells they likely have no knowledge of because they never even played 2e and never once mentioned 2e in that entire thread - is a blatant lie on your part.  

It's an obvious attempt to weasel out of dealing with this issue.  You don't want to admit you were wrong, so you grabbed onto any fucking possible way out that let you save face, and so you took that stupid 2e spell life-jacket you thought someone was tossing you.  But they weren't tossing it to you - it had nothing to do with your idiotic claim.  For you, it just fucking sinks.

You know, I get it.  You deserve a way out of this hole you dug for yourself.  If you're not confident enough in yourself to be able to admit when you're wrong, OK.  You're my peer, a fellow gamer who loves the same things I love, and I have no good reason to see you squirm like this.  You don't like a game that I don't even fucking play anymore.  It's not your fault you don't know the 4e rules, because you never read them, and so you didn't really get what you were reading in those 4e threads.  That's cool, no reason you need to read rules for a game that's not your thing.  I wish you'd just admit that, but if it's not something you find yourself able to do, OK then.  Who am I to judge someone for putting their foot in their mouth?

So, here's your way out:  Just fucking drop it already.  Just stop replying to this aspect of the thread.  Go back to talking about 5e, and just let this whole thing drop.  Stop talking about it - stop putting lies on top of lies, stop the weaseling and grasping at straws and search for a way out.  Just let it go.  And I will let it go as well.  And I strongly suspect Soviet and others will as well.  And if those guys try and take a last word - just don't respond.  Take a breath, and move on.

Damn, I hope that puts an end to this boring ass debate.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683289Show me a spell that does what Come and Get it does. Show me even one.

I am unfamiliar with this feat, but based on the way it is being talked about I wonder if this (with the approach function) isn't close:

QuoteCommand, Greater
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting]  
Level: Clr 5, Nobility 5  
Components: V  
Casting time: 1 standard action  
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)  
Targets: One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart  
Duration: 1 round/level  

 You give creatures a single command, which they obey to the best of their ability at their earliest opportunity. You may select from the following options. At the start of each commanded creature's action after the first, it gets another Will save to attempt to break free from the spell. Each creature must receive the same command.

Approach: On its turn, the subject moves toward you as quickly and directly as possible for 1 round. The creature may do nothing but move during its turn, and it provokes attacks of opportunity for this movement as normal.

Or does the fighter power have a different function.  I am not a 4E expert, and while I played it for a couple of years I definitely did not learn classes other than the one I was playing (rogue)

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;6833774e is not 3e "done right."  4e stripped out all the good parts of 3e and left the bad.

If what you want is TSR D&D, sure. But then 3e is just TSR D&D broken in half and with a shit ton of added complexity. Why wouldn't you play TSR D&D at that point?

Quote from: Mistwell;6835514e was a fine RPG.  It's not my favorite version of D&D anymore, but it was a fine RPG.  

So 4E was a failure in your eyes as well, since it is not your favorite anymore.

4e and 3e are not the same.  4e is not 3e done "right".  While both are D&D, they're not the same, any more than 3e and 2e were the same.  I could go on about the differences, but I think everyone already knows most of them, and I don't think anyone really wants to have that stupid debate again anyway.

My new favorite 4venger whine is "I don't just want 4e again I just want something NEW, like they did with 4e!"

Oh really? And how did that work out?

Not that I actually believe them, lying dipshits that they are, but its a funny thought.

Quote from: Saplatt;683552That's the same thing that I hear in "real life" over and over.  I don't think it's discussed much at rpgnet because it's viewed as edition warring and is likely to draw a ban.  In fact, several very common criticisms of 4e (such as disassociated mechanics) are also grounds for banning, because one or more of the moderators decided that it wasn't true or valid.

I can understand, in principle, why that site wanted to bar edition warring.  But the result, I'm afraid, is that popular criticism of 4e has been stifled.  If so, then it's no wonder that we see posters over there scratching their heads, wondering why nationwide polls with many thousands of participants consistently lean in the opposite direction from the predominant opinions on the big purple subforum.

That sort of thing happens when you screw with freedom of expression.

So, instead we are told that the polls are wrong, or badly worded or that the people participating in them aren't really potential consumers.  This is the "denial phase" of the grief process.

It's also a sad reminder for internet forum celebrities that they aren't really as celebrated as they think they are, in the bigger scheme of things.

TBP policy of avoiding confrontation to create "an emotionally safe place" has resulted in conversation being stifled.

Quote from: Mistwell;6835654e and 3e are not the same.  4e is not 3e done "right".  While both are D&D, they're not the same, any more than 3e and 2e were the same.  I could go on about the differences, but I think everyone already knows most of them, and I don't think anyone really wants to have that stupid debate again anyway.

Yeah they are different but I think it's fair to say they share a strain of DNA different than TSR D&D. "Builds", and "balance" in the broad sense and feats, skills, etc... In the narrow.

Quote from: Mistwell;6835654e and 3e are not the same.  4e is not 3e done "right".  While both are D&D, they're not the same, any more than 3e and 2e were the same.  I could go on about the differences, but I think everyone already knows most of them, and I don't think anyone really wants to have that stupid debate again anyway.

Except for you.

Quote from: jeff37923;683563So 4E was a failure in your eyes as well, since it is not your favorite anymore.

Of course a game is not a failure simply because it's not my favorite anymore. 1e D&D was my favorite D&D for years, but that does not make it a failure because eventually I liked 3e more.  Star Wars: A New Hope was my favorite movie for years, but that doesn't make it a failure because it's no longer my favorite movie.  

Surely there was a version of Traveler that was your favorite, until at some point you moved on to liking a different version of Traveler?

Quote from: Piestrio;683569Yeah they are different but I think it's fair to say they share a strain of DNA different than TSR D&D. "Builds", and "balance" in the broad sense and feats, skills, etc... In the narrow.

Yes, I agree.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683522I suspect we're beyond helping at this point, doomed to clash pointlessly until one of us gets bored and wanders off, leaving the other to smugly claim victory. (Spoiler alert: I'm the one who's bored)

It's been a rather standard fare topic flameout. I was wondering why you bothered for so many pages. But at least I got to answer a question for you. See, some good came from this!