The ongoing "debate" about the relative merits of D&D 3.5 and 4th Edition D&D cracks me up.
When you get down to it, it's just like the "PC vs. MAC" debates--utterly pointless and largely a matter of personal opinion. I have little interest in D&D 4th edition--like board games, I would play it just to hang out with friends, but I don't think I would be able to invest the energy into the character like I do with 3.5/Pathfinder. I *like* all the fiddly bits of the 3.5/Pathfinder experience, and the streamlining of 4th edition seems dumb to me. I disagree with fundamental design decisions in the game. With a good GM I'm sure it would still be fun, but it will never replace Pathfinder in my heart.
Others disagree--fair enough. I refuse to call names because someone likes a game I don't. Plenty of people love Monopoly, too, which I loathe. Doesn't make them dumb. Hell, I have two good friends who LOVE board games. Me, I'm basically bored stiff by most board games. I just don't have any interest in playing them, and only do so to be social and not be the jerk in the room who keeps others from having fun. There are only one or two card or board games I love: Munchkin, Trivial Pursuit (especially Geeky versions), and games like "Bethump'd with words." Maybe a few others. But most board games? Meh. The violence of my internal reaction the one and only time I played "Lunch Money" would shock the people I was playing with. I seriously thought there was something wrong with the people playing for liking such a fucked-up game, and was incredibly angry at them for making me play it. Then I came to my senses, and realized that the thing that pissed me off was probably what made it fun for them. *shrug*
This also applies to playing the RPGs I love. My character design philosophy doesn't worry about how the numbers will make me better. I care more about the "flavor" of the character than creating said character tactically. This is why Alleyn d'Argentique of Montaigne was a great swordsman and a CRAPTASTIC shot with a pistol, and couldn't swim: because the character HAD to play the violin. He was the spoiled son of a merchant who had been forced out of his cushy existence by trusting the wrong people. His violin skills never came up in game, but the jokes when he screwed up with his crappy pistols earned me many drama points, and it was fun to play. When creating D&D wizards, I pick spells based on what I want the character to be able to do, not what's going to make him most effective in combat. I HATE when other players start lecturing me on why I should have taken (or shouldn't have taken) this or that spell or feat. For fuck's sake, play your character, not mine. My choices have never gotten anyone else's character killed, so sod off!
Anyway, love whichever form and method of gaming you love. Just don't expect other folks to always agree, and don't call them names when they have opinions different from yours.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}