Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;258052For context, Balb:

AFAIK you never really did play, or like, D&D all that much, yes? You've always been more of a RQ kinda person?

You see that Turkhanate link in my sig?

I play Rachid the Prudent, I believe I'm now at fifth level.  I worked damn hard to get there, and we recently lost a third or fourth (I forget) level PC which took some time to get there.

I don't like 3e or 4e, or indeed AD&D, but I consider RC an excellent rpg and I'm open to other versions (hell, with the right GM I'm open to the ones I don't like, I'd play Pseudo's 4e game even though I've looked at 4e and saw nothing at all I liked).

Edit:  Forgot to say, I had a lot of sympathy with Melan's original argument, but I think Mearls is reacting more to a general sentiment here which is no longer as focussed as Melan's original post was.  I think he's reacting not to a post by Melan, but to the negativity at this site, which is sometimes draining and which Sett is a big contributor to.

Edit2:  But it is fair to say I'm more of a RQ-head, I grant.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;258038So you're blaming on intent what I am blaming on poor/narrow design? I'm willing to accept that as a valid alternative explanation, but doesn't make my view of WotC any less dim at this point.

Yes, the intent was a narrow and specialized design.   It is only poor design if they were trying to create an open design.  Also, remember that the 4e design was aimed at making an RPG that could be easily played using DDI.  

I enjoy both narrow focus and open design games.   I enjoy Dark Heresy and CoC and 4e and I know that they each do their one thing.  I enjoy OD&D and Traveller and Gamma World because they can do so many things.

I do not blame any fan of Old School if they wish WotC produced a version of D&D aimed at us.   Troll Lords and Palladium Books are as close as Old Schoolers get to having a "major" company value us as customers.  

And yes, I know that many Old Schoolers would debate whether TL or PB would be considered Old School.

Balb, fair enough.

What ticks me off is that Mearls, having schmoozed with Melan in a thread or three over here as 4E was in the works, then goes on to attack a caricature of his position. That caricature may exist, but then Mearls shouldn't have used Melan's term.

Quote from: Spinachcat;257941A hero is someone who strives against great odds with a risk of failure against his foes.  A hero does not require a particular level, simply a choice by the player to put their character in harm's way for an ideal bigger than themselves.

Yes and no.

There are two common conceptions of "hero". The first is the Anglo-Saxon conception which we had from about the 18th century onwards, which is as you said, someone struggling against great odds. Which is why we have stories like Rorke's Drift, a hundred redcoats against six thousand Zulus, or 300, where the 4,000 allies are forgotten or mocked, and the numbers of the Persians inflated, to make the Spartan struggle sound even more heroic than it was.

The second is from the ancient world, especially Greek myth. In this, the hero is someone far beyond what any normal person could ever be. Achilles is a heroic fighter - even though since his whole body except his ankles is invulnerable, by fighting he risks nothing. Cu Culainn is a heroic fighter - even though he has so much magical aid that people actually stop the whole universe's movement forward in time so he has a chance to heal up before the next fight while his foes remain wounded.

Now, my preference in "heroes" is definitely for the first. For me it just makes it easier to get into the story, or suspend disbelief while roleplaying - because I can imagine it, it's plausible.

But there's a strong strain in our culture of liking the second kind of "hero", the nigh-invulnerable son of a god. And this is what's touched on in a lot of computer games, movies, and roleplaying games.

Wow. I guess Mearls has just given up in hiding his 5th columnist status altogether.

RPGPundit

Mearls can call me whatever he wants.  I don't hafta listen if I'm busy playing my game.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;258061What ticks me off is that Mearls, having schmoozed with Melan in a thread or three over here as 4E was in the works, then goes on to attack a caricature of his position. That caricature may exist, but then Mearls shouldn't have used Melan's term.

Well, in all fairness, I think that particular blog post (which is pretty old, by the way) is more a reflection on Pundit's take on the Tyranny of Fun than my argument.

All in all, I don't consider it convincing, as it is a bit of a straw man. When and if a more thoughtful rebuttal comes up, I will consider it. As of now, I must again draw the attention to my observation that most of my opponents do not deny the existence of the Tyranny of Fun, they just happen to like it...

This is a quote in the 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide:

"While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice."

It goes on to recommend various systems that more or less ensure that you get a ridiculously over-powered character (for example roll 3d6 six times for each attribute, take the highest result).

So I don't think it's a new thing, sadly.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;258071Mearls can call me whatever he wants.  I don't hafta listen if I'm busy playing my game.

Doc Rotwang is right, as often happens. Look at me not giving a shit about what Mr. Mearls thinks about me while I enjoy reading Midnight and prepare my first D&D campaign in several years. No, really, look at me. I'm really boiling, because what a dude I don't even know personally thinks about me is VERY important and matters A LOT.

Internet makes most of people look like a bunch of whiny pussies.

Quote from: Imperator;258163Doc Rotwang is right, as often happens. Look at me not giving a shit about what Mr. Mearls thinks about me while I enjoy reading Midnight and prepare my first D&D campaign in several years. No, really, look at me. I'm really boiling, because what a dude I don't even know personally thinks about me is VERY important and matters A LOT.

Internet makes most of people look like a bunch of whiny pussies.

In the end, pretty much yeah.
If 4e is loved by folks and they play it, the more, the merrier in this case.
If 4e is hated and leads people stay with 3e or leads them to other games more their style, then that's cool too.

The only thing that really happened with this new edition is that a great deal of people were apparently disillusioned by the fact that D&D is nothing more than whatever the people responsible for publishing it says it is. Unless they're new to the hobby, I'm sorry it took them so long to realize it.

Feeling insulted by Mearls' "brain-damaged" comment, I use my Encounter Power of Smite With An Unfavorable 4e Review and take a Healing Surge.

Quote from: Age of Fable;258136This is a quote in the 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide:

You are making the same mistake as Mearls. The ToF argument isn't about power inflation per se.

Why should I care what Mearls thinks?

Mearls didn't know what random encounters were for and then re-instates them into his game for nearly the same purpose they were created for!

I'll take a game designed by Melan over one by Mearls any day.

I liked how Mearls quoted himself describing how to level up as a GM: "you have to resist taking player frustration and apparent disinterest as a personal affront or critic of your GMing style."
 
It's like that old joke, the beatings will continue until morale improves, except instead of "morale" it's "frustration and disinterest" and instead of "beatings" it's "fun"
 
The Tyranny of Fun will continue until personal affronts and critiques of my GMing style cease. -- Mearls