Quote from: Mistwell;683089So let me see if I understand your position here.  Some jackass said something stupid, claiming his views were representative of all fans of that game.  And you think he is a jackass too, and would not put much respect into his RPG views in general.  But, because it satisfies your current admittedly biased position on a particular issue, you will put 100% full faith and credit into the words of the jackass you previously wouldn't trust as far as you could throw him?

Yeah, fuck that Sacrosanct.  That's a load of bullshit.  Fighters did not replicate spells.  If some jackass said they did, he's wrong.  He's not more trustworthy for this topic because it feeds your admitted bias, any more than he's more trustworthy on a topic where he runs counter to your bias.

Is reading comprehension a problem here or something?  I didn't say just one guy.  Jesus, Mistwell, I already said this is the argument being presented by a group of people.  The group that defines themselves as 4e experts.

Running counter to my bias?  Dude, I already told you I don't pay 4e.  I don't know what powers do what.  So when a group of self professed 4e experts and defenders say that this is how it works in 4e and this is what they want in 5e in order for them to get the 4e playstyle, I have no reason to automatically assume they are lying.

Sorry, but what you're saying is what's complete bullshit.  Do you not know how normal human interaction works?  If a group of basketball fans who love to play basketball tell me that X is part of basketball, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially if I don't know anything about basketball.  If they lied about it, then that's their problem, not mine.

Holy fuck..

Quote from: Mistwell;683091LOL.

Nearly universally hated by D&D players?

Where do you get this shit? All those thousands of DDI subscribes don't count now?  Come on man, lots of players liked 4e.  It being "not profitable enough for Hasbro" is not the same as "nobody liked it".  Which you know.  You were, I assume, just trolling.

In my experiance neary everyone that could be described as a "D&D fan" in 2008 was turned off by 4e.

4e drew it's audience largely from 3 sources:

1. New players. This was when D&D could still count in being the first stop for new gamers.

2. The most casual of players who just go along with whatever books come out.

3. People who did not like (or activly disliked) D&D before.

That's what I mean by "D&D players" didn't like it. Circa 2008.

Remember all the talk about "firing the fans"? That didn't come from nowhere.

I like 4e and I've been playing since early second edition.

My group liked 4e and they've all been playing since second edition (with one starting under 1e and another under 3e).

My GM's friend's group who sometimes overlap also like 4e and they've been playing since 2e if not earlier in some cases.

In my experience a lot of the people who have a massive hate of 4e are those who started under 3e.

Quote from: Haffrung;683114But they did do that for Essentials - they split up the classes into the four core (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard), and then four secondary (druid, paladin, ranger, warlock).

I have a feeling Essentials offers some clues to how WotC intends to present Next. The goals are the same - make the game more accessible to new or casual gamers.

In a lot of ways Essentials was clearly an attempt to try and 'fix' 4e and provide a core they could sell on a long term basis. I also think a lot of the feedback that went into making Essentials informed the starting point for 5e.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683115Is reading comprehension a problem here or something?  I didn't say just one guy.  Jesus, Mistwell, I already said this is the argument being presented by a group of people.  The group that defines themselves as 4e experts.

Running counter to my bias?  Dude, I already told you I don't pay 4e.  I don't know what powers do what.  So when a group of self professed 4e experts and defenders say that this is how it works in 4e and this is what they want in 5e in order for them to get the 4e playstyle, I have no reason to automatically assume they are lying.

Sorry, but what you're saying is what's complete bullshit.  Do you not know how normal human interaction works?  If a group of basketball fans who love to play basketball tell me that X is part of basketball, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially if I don't know anything about basketball.  If they lied about it, then that's their problem, not mine.

Holy fuck..

Emphasis mine.

Quote from: soviet;683122Emphasis mine.

Don't be fucking stupid.  Like I said, the alternative is to assume everyone is always lying.

That also includes you, by the way.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683124Don't be fucking stupid.  Like I said, the alternative is to assume everyone is always lying.

That also includes you, by the way.

'Blindly repeat nonsense that you've found on the internet by people who say they are experts' is not a good strategy. Trying to characterise common sense as 'assuming everyone is lying' is quite a stretch.

Can I assume by the way that you believe that 4e and Dungeon World are both old school games, you fully subscribe to GNS theory, believe that the swine are planning to subvert our schools, and that 9/11 was an inside job?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683124Don't be fucking stupid.

So much for that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683115Is reading comprehension a problem here or something?  I didn't say just one guy.  Jesus, Mistwell, I already said this is the argument being presented by a group of people.  The group that defines themselves as 4e experts.

You named a guy, and then said "others".  Prove it man.  This seems a spurious claim to me.  I am asking you for links.  Find what it is you're talking about.  What was the point of naming a jackass if it wasn't about that jackass?  And who CARES if he calls himself an expert? If I call myself a Traveller expert, would you simply accept that title for me? I can tell you, Jeff would throw a fit if you did.  

That dude is wrong. Fighters couldn't replicate spells.  I strongly suspect you're talking about a specific mechanics argument someone was having, rather than the actual in-game function of some powers.  For example, I suspect it was a specific discussion of mechanics comparisons such as "wizard can cast a melee-ranged attack that does 3d6+[mainstat] damage, vs Fighter who can use a melee-ranged power that makes his attack with his sword do 3d6+[mainstat] damage".  Now, just because the range and number of dice you toss to determine damage are the same DOES NOT MAKE THE FIGHTERS ATTACK THE SAME AS A SPELL.  The resolution mechanics might be similar, but in-game there is a huge role playing difference between casting a spell, and hitting something with your sword.  The mechanics might be the same in any version of D&D, but that never made the sword-hitting actually a spell because the mechanics were the same, before.

QuoteRunning counter to my bias?  Dude, I already told you I don't pay 4e.  I don't know what powers do what.

Yes, your bias is "4e sucks".  

QuoteSo when a group of self professed 4e experts and defenders say that this is how it works in 4e and this is what they want in 5e in order for them to get the 4e playstyle, I have no reason to automatically assume they are lying.

Except for the fact you never trusted them for anything before, but are suddenly trusting them now, because their argument furthers your bias that 4e sucks, and the argument you're making to demonstrate that is, essentially, "4e sucks so much that fighters can replicate spells".

QuoteSorry, but what you're saying is what's complete bullshit.  Do you not know how normal human interaction works?  If a group of basketball fans who love to play basketball tell me that X is part of basketball, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially if I don't know anything about basketball.  If they lied about it, then that's their problem, not mine.

Holy fuck..

You've NEVER given that particular set of jackasses the benefit of the doubt for anything, right up until now.  It's not bullshit for me to assume the motive for your sudden about-take on trusting their instincts and opinions about RPGs is because for this one issue they happen to further your agenda of demonstrating 4e sucks by conflating fighter powers with spells.  If you're exasperated by us calling you on that, imagine how exasperated we are by seeing you parade a group of jackasses that you and I both agree are jackasses as sudden "experts" in something relating to RPGs.

Quote from: Piestrio;683118In my experiance neary everyone that could be described as a "D&D fan" in 2008 was turned off by 4e.

Oh so you're arguing from the logical fallacy that your experience is representative of the whole.

Well then, now that we've gotten that idiocy out of the way, do you have any actual objective data to back up your claim?

Quote from: Mistwell;683155You named a guy, and then said "others".  Prove it man.  

Read this fucking thread for some examples, you jackass.

When you've got a bunch of 4e fans saying that they feel excluded in Next because Next's fighters don't replicate the spells of mages and clerics like they do in 4e, and explicitly tell you, "This is what 4e style is" when you ask them.

The only bias here is yours, in your steadfast refusal to admit that it possibly can't be the most likely reason, but that I'm somehow being disingenuous.  Christ you moron, it's not even me asking them these questions most of the time.  The 4e crowd is saying this, and I'm at fault for pointing it out?  I don't know if they are right and wrong, and the only solution you and soviet have come up with comes down to "always assume everyone is lying."

How fucking stupid.  I guess I should assume you're a liar when you said you're a lawyer, and that you're full of shit whenever you talk about aspects of the law.

After all, everyone is a liar....

QuoteExcept for the fact you never trusted them for anything before, but are suddenly trusting them now, because their argument furthers your bias that 4e sucks, and the argument you're making to demonstrate that is, essentially, "4e sucks so much that fighters can replicate spells".

Even though I might think they are crybabbies, when they say, "This is how X works in 4e", I have no reason to disbelieve them.  They are two completely different things.  I've never said I don't trust them when it comes down to what's included in 4e.  Once again, that's your bias making shit up.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683161Read this fucking thread for some examples, you jackass.

When you've got a bunch of 4e fans saying that they feel excluded in Next because Next's fighters don't replicate the spells of mages and clerics like they do in 4e, and explicitly tell you, "This is what 4e style is" when you ask them.

It's a 23 page thread. I've ctrl-F searched the word 'replicate' and I can't find any uses, and on a brief skim I can't find any similar discussions in there either. A more specific link maybe?

Quote from: Mistwell;683158Oh so you're arguing from the logical fallacy that your experience is representative of the whole.

Well then, now that we've gotten that idiocy out of the way, do you have any actual objective data to back up your claim?

Ah the old "I have to shut down this discussion" ploy.

After all none of us can 'prove' anything so nobodies opinion is any more or less valid than anyone else's!

Yay! 4e's virginity is intact for another day!

Quote from: soviet;683120I like 4e and I've been playing since early second edition.

My group liked 4e and they've all been playing since second edition (with one starting under 1e and another under 3e).

My GM's friend's group who sometimes overlap also like 4e and they've been playing since 2e if not earlier in some cases.

In my experience a lot of the people who have a massive hate of 4e are those who started under 3e.

That's weird because I don't know anyone real world that likes 4e that started playing D&D before 2000.  In my experience those that really wanted something like 4e were the younger 30 and under players that complained about 3rd edition and knew very little of the older editions.  In fact the very first person I know that was overjoyed with 4e when it came out, was only like 24, and he was the one always discussing hypothetical situations in order to demonstrate how "broken" D&D was.

Quote from: soviet;683165It's a 23 page thread. I've ctrl-F searched the word 'replicate' and I can't find any uses, and on a brief skim I can't find any similar discussions in there either. A more specific link maybe?

Sorry, the actual "replicate" argument was this thread.  But the original thread I linked has similar arguments