There's negativity here, true, but analyzing the reception of culture is a completely legitimate pursuit. You can certainly argue with a particular analysis but, Emperor Norton, I think you're calling for know-nothingism.

Quote from: Haffrung;731142While 4E brings the superpowered PCs, there's nothing about the game that makes it more of a good vs evil save-the-world game than any other edition of D&D. It doesn't support kingdom building or social contests, and there's nothing in it about epic destinies.

Nothing in it about epic destinies? Have you read 4E at all?  Just curious.

Lets start with the PHB (page 29):

In the epic tier,your character's capabilities are truly superheroic. Your class still determines most of your abilities,but your most dramatic powers come from your choice of epic destiny,which you select at 21st level.

It seems like epic destinies are an actual thing that you choose for your character at 21st level.

Right from level 1 4E assumes the PCs are heroes and refers to them as such.

An AD&D adventurer might be a hero from time to time, but the game makes no such assumptions.

Quote from: Arminius;731269There's negativity here, true, but analyzing the reception of culture is a completely legitimate pursuit. You can certainly argue with a particular analysis but, Emperor Norton, I think you're calling for know-nothingism.

Except most of the "analysis" in this thread is just insults. People aren't looking for a reason that people enjoy 4e, they are looking for a reason to look down on people who enjoy 4e.

I mean, I'm not a fan of ten foot pole exploration or armies of hirelings, but you will never catch me insinuating that the people who do are somehow flawed for liking it. Its a game.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;731277Except most of the "analysis" in this thread is just insults. People aren't looking for a reason that people enjoy 4e, they are looking for a reason to look down on people who enjoy 4e.

I mean, I'm not a fan of ten foot pole exploration or armies of hirelings, but you will never catch me insinuating that the people who do are somehow flawed for liking it. Its a game.

When did I say anything about 4e?

When did I say anyone was wrong for liking anything?

I just said some people like to do lots of shit away from the table and enjoy it like that.

You're too fuckin touchy mate. Not everything is an attack on your elfgame.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;731265"They misunderstand real fantasy epics"

"The activity at the table isn't important [to them]"

I swear its like no one could possibly like the way a game plays at the table without being wrong about something.

The thing is, Edition Warring is stupid, and trying to speculate what "flaws" cause people to want to play a game you may not like is insulting.

What you may have missed was that we weren't talking about a game, but about a group of people.

EXAMPLE: the "fantasy epics" quote was in reference to people who say what they want is epic quests, but they only play a game based on how "epic" the battles feel or how many powers their character has, and how soon. It's not about the game at all, but about a disconnect between what these people claim to like and what they actually look for in a game. Epic quest fantasy like LotR doesn't have loads of powers, and few "epic" battles.

 There's plenty of people who play 4e who don't say anything like that... So no reason to defend 4e's good name, is there?

As said. I dont edition warrior.

I bitch about the absolute jarring disparities between edition settings.
But more importantly, broken mechanics.

Back to the Gamma World example.
3rd and 4th ed I rarely pick on other than 4th eds dim-witted attempts to turn the naming convention of monsters into its own language and started slapping it on everything. bleah. Otherwise eh. Its playable.
Alternity GW gets flack because it totally neutered the settings freedom of race choice. Otherwise eh. Its playable.
d20 GW is where I direct alot of my ire. Baughs slacker attitude towards designing the game irks me to no end. Near totally gutting the setting and switching to what amounts to a freeform magic system. (Which by the way is REALLY neet! But what the hell is is doing here?) was a WTF moment. Atrocious art direction. Not exceeded till the next version. And rules that arent just maybee broken. They are 200% blazingly broken or incomplete because "Oh the players will make those rules for us." argh!
D&D GW has about zero to do with the original. It does though streamline 4e rules and thus far is my only exposure to 4e. Ignoring the absolute goofball setting they presented. Hilarity Ensues. The main irk is the attitude of the designers and the near 100% random chargen (Which happens to be broken reguarding humans.) You choose a name and a weapon and an armour. Otherwise you have no control and the designers insult the players who might want something like free will there. Hilarity Ensues. Way to go jackasses. Oh and every rest your character may change radically. Hilarity Ensues. Then theres the art direction. Or absolute lack thereof. The monster section has zero in common with the setting theme. Oh yeah... and they tacked a CCG onto it. oh yay. Otherwise eh, its playable.

On the other hand everything I've seen or heard of 5th Age Dragonlance has convinced me it does indeed suck as a setting. Mechanics wise, no clue.

I've heard of some ire towards the whole Ao and de-powered gods event in Forgotten Realms back in the 90s. But so far not seen it other than in the D&D:FR comic.

Which brings up an odd observation. Over time it seems that weve moved from arguing over the setting, to arguing over the edition as a whole.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;731272Nothing in it about epic destinies? Have you read 4E at all?  Just curious.

Lets start with the PHB (page 29):

In the epic tier,your character's capabilities are truly superheroic. Your class still determines most of your abilities,but your most dramatic powers come from your choice of epic destiny,which you select at 21st level.

It seems like epic destinies are an actual thing that you choose for your character at 21st level.

Right from level 1 4E assumes the PCs are heroes and refers to them as such.

An AD&D adventurer might be a hero from time to time, but the game makes no such assumptions.

That doesn't make 4e any different than AD&D, with PCs being heroes at level 4 and superheroes at level 8.  At least it appears 4e makes you wait until level 21 before you become epic.  And BECMI, where PCs not only became epic, they became gods.  Immortals.  And I'm sure a whole lot of game play is done in 4e before PCs become level 21.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that no edition seems to push towards a superhero RPG than any other, and it all really comes down to how you play.

As I mentioned earlier, in my mind, what makes an epic character isn't necessarily the combat, but the actions throughout that character's campaigns which is usually done via roleplaying and the experiences.  And 4e, IMO, actually makes that harder to be epic because you spend a lot more time on a lot fewer encounters, and less time exploring and crafting your PC's story.  If someone views a PC as epic and legendary based mostly or solely on powers on a character sheet?  They probably disagree with my opinion.

YMMV of course.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;731265"They misunderstand real fantasy epics"

"The activity at the table isn't important [to them]"

First, I see that you fail to quote any actual posts from this thread.

Second, the only value judgement in the two statements above is your own. No one, to the best of my recollection, has claimed that these things make anyone a worse person. I think they're all true and chalk them up 100% to personal taste.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;731265I swear its like no one could possibly like the way a game plays at the table without being wrong about something.

The thing is, Edition Warring is stupid, and trying to speculate what "flaws" cause people to want to play a game you may not like is insulting. I don't even play 4e. I've played it before, and its... its alright. I like it better than 3.x, but me not liking 3.x doesn't cause me to speculate about why people don't see all the things wrong I see with it. It doesn't matter. They have their fun, I have my fun, and there is no reason for me to spend time insulting them or their opinions.

I have no qualms about calling out edition warriors, and in fact I've made a big ranty anti-edition-warring post a few pages back in this very thread. But this just isn't the case here.

Quote from: Omega;731296On the other hand everything I've seen or heard of 5th Age Dragonlance has convinced me it does indeed suck as a setting. Mechanics wise, no clue.

  Actually, IMO, it's a very good setting ... if you can get past the fact that they had to rebuild after W&H tried to shake up or kill DL in Dragons of Summer Flame, and can forgive them for committing the common 90s sins of being too ambitious and holding back information for later supplements that, unfortunately, never got released. Ironically, it's probably the most 'sandbox-friendly' DL ever was.

  But I'm biased--I like the system and setting, and it revived my interest in DL after it had laid fallow for years.