I hope that I am not belaboring the point too much, but the Linkin Park comparison wasn't meant to say "Linkin Park is bad and Wagner is good, so if 4E is like Linkin Park compared to Wagner, it must be BAD." My point was that they are two types of music from two different eras, aimed at two different audiences, and I expressed the fear (though please note, not the certainty) that the situation with 4E was analagous. In trying to be clever I ran afoul of the fact that many people think LP is crap and therefore assumed I was saying 4E was as well.
I'm also seeing the term "grognard" thrown around suggesting that it means an old fuddy-duddy who can't stand anyone making changes to his creaky old game system. I see it somewhat differently. I accept that changes were necessary, witness the following quote from the review:
"Certainly some elements of 'old' D&D were broken beyond repair and needed to be replaced. Certainly a reboot and rewrite was justifiable and even necessary. But as I thumb through the new rulebooks and see what changes have been wrought, I wonder why WotC's designers chose to change so much."
I hope that upon rereading you will see that I am not opposed to change or improvement if it is necessary. I have a problem with change for its own sake, and in a couple of cases I question the wisdom of some changes made in 4E. In the end they may well prove to be good choices, but this review simply states my own ambivalence about some (and, yes, my hostility toward others).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evan Waters
So first you sarcastically imply that it's not much, now you're saying it's too much and that too proves that D&D isn't a proper RPG.
THIS is where the "grognard" allegations and such come from- it seems all sorts of hyperbole (again, Linkin Park to 3E's Wagner? Why not say it's THE LOVE GURU to 3E's CITIZEN KANE while we're at it, FFS?!) and snark gets thrown in way out of proportion to the game's actual shortcomings.
|