[Menchi]

Originally Posted by Spectral Knight

There's always the tone of your posts to examine. Interesting that you've toned it down a bit for this one. Progress, I think



I've only got so much time to read in a day. Also, you haven't stopped asking for 'solid evidence'.

So far, the only easy-to-find solid evidence is sales figures, merely because those are tabulated and publicly displayed. Returns and resales don't get such a tabulation. As I said, these only point out that the game is selling well, not why it is selling well, or how many people are actually playing. It's clearly a hit in sales. Whether it becomes a hit for other reasons does remain to be seen. The real pity, however, is that the only thing people will point at to call it a hit will be sales. Those don't tell the whole story.

If you had taken the time to read further, you would have discovered that I said the exact same thing. That it is too early to tell, and that it will be interesting to see where the game is in a year's time. You also would have discovered that I did provide evidence of why this review is inaccurate by citing the SRD and the fourth edition PHB.

I included context where it was relevant, and where it wouldn't result in tl;dr. I also said that there was no concerted crusade to smear D&D4. People are smearing it, but there's no organized boycott, no smear campaign, in short, no organized effort to demean or destroy the game. There is also no organized effort to praise it, but there are so many fanboys of this game, like any other with the D&D label, that it can seem like an organized effort merely through weight of numbers. There is no campaign on either side of the spite fence, though there's plenty of spite to go around, whether it's saying '4E SUX!' or '4E RULEZ, STFU TROLL!'

Asking people to stop frothing, accusing, and dramamongering is hardly 'ragging on' people who are contributing nothing good to the image of 4E fans. As I said, I have a vested interest in that image. Attacking negative reviews for no reason other than that they are negative, and mudslinging anyone who supports said reviews, sends a very clear message: Whether D&D4 is a good game or not, there will be hordes of fanboys around to harass you for having an opinion that doesn't agree with theirs. This is not a Good Thing (tm), especially not to legitimate fans who end up lumped in with them.

As for the anti-4E kind who contribute nothing meaningful to the ongoing debate? They are in the minority of 4E detractors, and lampoon themselves merely by posting. They stick out without any help at all.

Except that I didn't "attack for no reason. As I stated before I listed my reasons and provided examples from the review which were reference with information both from the SRD and from the fourth edition rulebook.

That's why I'm somewhat surprised by your vitriolic attack. I agreed with a lot of what you say. I said that given that the only evidence is sales, it's too early to tell as there isn't anything else solid. So standing up and saying "4e is/isn't doing well because <insert anecdote here>" that's why I said:

I want more than anecdotal evidence - because my own anecdotal evidence pretty much contradicts what he's claiming.

Not because my anecdotal evidence was objectively superior - but because it's a null-sum equation. For every "D&D isn't doing well" story, I can produce a "D&D is a success" story. Because it's anecdotal neither has weight.

That's why I'm asking for some solid evidence if you're going to claim anything. If not that, show some strong reasoning. Heck - Fourth edition has lots of odd little errata; some weapons will never be picked because there is a cheaper and lighter option that does the exact same thing; there are uses of teleport that aren't handled by the rules or the rules are a bit ambiguous. Last night we found a new one - the Oni Nighthunter's hypnosis breath power has a permanent unconsciousness effect. I've since found that this has been corrected in the errata to a save ends - but in the middle of a game? Nobody had a copy of the errata and the DM had to make a call or one of the players was permanently out of the game, as written.

Those are genuine complaints. But saying that the Wizard is nerfed? That the powers are just cut-and-paste? Those are arguably inaccurate, and I backed that up with examples and reasoning why I felt they were. And the claim that the Warlord was unable to get close enough to cast his abilities in a playtest is hardly evidence of an issue with the rules unless the reviewer can explain how it was the rules and not the players bad decisions that prevented the Warlord from using his ablities.

These are examples of how this review is not an accurate representation of the product being reviewed.

Conan