tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8569613471183362572.post3498955505431393905..comments2024-02-25T08:35:09.242-05:00Comments on Sword and Board: "Type IV D&D"Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04732052814850525574noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8569613471183362572.post-54855375421126191172011-11-17T10:53:13.416-05:002011-11-17T10:53:13.416-05:00I made it up. I made it up to be fair to all sides...I made it up. I made it up to be fair to all sides--it's a kind of D&D. Not a bad kind either.<br /><br />"Edition" implies progress in a way that bother some people so I thought Type IV was more value neutral. Plus I thought the demon thing was funny.<br /><br />Next time you have an issue with some neologism I made up, it'd be nice if you could just ask a question about it rather than sniping at me in my comments.<br /><br />I'm sorry if the term bothers you--it seems like a silly thing to call someone names about, though.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8569613471183362572.post-47628807911477094192011-11-11T00:37:10.583-05:002011-11-11T00:37:10.583-05:00I've seen it on other boards than Zak's bl...I've seen it on other boards than Zak's blog, so maybe it was just him or maybe other people were picking it up. Either way, it just annoys me.<br /><br />Also, TETSNBN is also really stupid, and I always make a point of writing 3e when I'm on Dragonsfoot. Of course, DF has other issues that are just as bad, like their fucked up view of what "real" Greyhawk is.<br /><br />Anyways, thanks for commenting, everyone.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04732052814850525574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8569613471183362572.post-69399591528995056992011-11-10T11:10:18.769-05:002011-11-10T11:10:18.769-05:00Yeah, I don't get why "Type IV D&D&qu...Yeah, I don't get why "Type IV D&D" is offensive...as others have said, it just seems like a clever turn of phrase to me.The Grey Elfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14696474020129732936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8569613471183362572.post-59697984049634867142011-11-10T09:33:37.003-05:002011-11-10T09:33:37.003-05:00Type IV becomes offensive only under a particular ...<i>Type IV</i> becomes offensive only under a particular point of view: with it you compare the <i>4E</i> to <i>Magic: The Gathering</i> (<i>Type</i> is used as a Deck Format).<br /><br /><br />BTW, strangely nobody has the testicles to call it <i>AD&D 4th Edition</i> as it should be. ^_^Hamel™https://www.blogger.com/profile/10274145010591107989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8569613471183362572.post-1289151531622640392011-11-10T08:58:05.112-05:002011-11-10T08:58:05.112-05:00Judging by Zak's most recent post here
http:/...Judging by Zak's most recent post here<br /><br />http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2011/11/dear-wizards.html<br /><br />he's at least being read around the WotC offices. The pornstar shtick aside, he's one of our most prolific and creative bloggers, so if you're dismissing him out of hand purely based on his completely unoffensive name for 4E, you're really missing out on a lot of valuable gaming material.Sullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08775443433933924102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8569613471183362572.post-62167169297106983912011-11-10T08:43:19.172-05:002011-11-10T08:43:19.172-05:00Hmm, "type IV" also emphasizes that it i...Hmm, "type IV" also emphasizes that it is a different version, without the 'improvement' suggested by a 'new edition'. In it's way, it is a fairly value-neutral way of talking about 4e. "WoD&D" is dismissive; "Type IV" implies the other editions are type I-III, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8569613471183362572.post-6815149147385160632011-11-10T08:15:04.493-05:002011-11-10T08:15:04.493-05:00Besides thinking it's pretty funny, I also thi...Besides thinking it's pretty funny, I also think it fits since "4e" is not just a new printing, but rather an entirely different game usurping Brand Name...James Pattersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252422888157034697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8569613471183362572.post-88893653513048693072011-11-10T06:55:42.498-05:002011-11-10T06:55:42.498-05:00Yeah, I don't get what it so immature about &q...Yeah, I don't get what it so immature about "Type IV" either, and as far as I know D&DWPS is the only one who uses it. I think he coined a while back, tongue in cheek, when he posted about how much fun he had trying 4e for the first time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8569613471183362572.post-55212086391700112332011-11-10T04:40:01.996-05:002011-11-10T04:40:01.996-05:00WotC hasn't mattered to me much for the last c...WotC hasn't mattered to me much for the last couple of years. Besides, its a lot less insulting than The Edition That Shall Not Be Named, which had currency on Dragonsfoot as the term of choice for 3e.Jeff Rientshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17493878980535235896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8569613471183362572.post-73566394573321791822011-11-10T04:20:21.922-05:002011-11-10T04:20:21.922-05:00The only place I've really seen "Type IV&...The only place I've really seen "Type IV" used is on Zak's blog. He may have even coined the term. <br />I just see it as a clever turn of phrase - a pun on the demon types from the old 1E Monster Manual. <br />Nothing particularly negative or anything.<br /><br />Could it be the context you're seeing it used in elsewhere that's putting you off the term?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08275471098088646672noreply@blogger.com