4E being immune to criticism (forked from Sentimentality And D&D...)

[Raven Crowking]

However matter of factly claiming to be the sole arbiter of truth and that huge groups of people are wrong in their fundamental assumptions about the game is a bit aggressive. It's one of the reason a lot of people get upset with the apple/orange issues as well. "4e is not D&D, and that's the truth".

The casual "not that there is anything wrong with that" added to the "you are doing it wrong" doesn't help.

This sort of thing, to me, reads a lot more like "claiming to be the sole arbiter of truth" than what ExploderWizard wrote. After all, ExploderWizard is not, so far as I can tell, telling you that he is the sole arbiter of what you think or are claiming.

Certainly, he has never written "I am the sole arbiter of truth", so you are, in fact, claiming that your understanding of what he wrote trumps his understanding of what he wrote.

That, my friend, is arrogant.


RC

 

[WalterKovacs]

This sort of thing, to me, reads a lot more like "claiming to be the sole arbiter of truth" than what ExploderWizard wrote. After all, ExploderWizard is not, so far as I can tell, telling you that he is the sole arbiter of what you think or are claiming.

Certainly, he has never written "I am the sole arbiter of truth", so you are, in fact, claiming that your understanding of what he wrote trumps his understanding of what he wrote.

That, my friend, is arrogant.


RC

ACTUALLY, I am responding to him.

I am explaining how what he wrote can be seen as aggressive.

I am saying that some people will interpret "It is what it is" as being a "I'm sorry you can't see it, but 4e is a supers game whether you see it or not".

I am not saying he's arrogant. I'm saying that he is coming off that way to some. Nature of the beast when it comes to the internet ... you can't exactly get all the subtlety of someone's tone.

His "I didn't mean to be aggressive" seemed to be asking why people were responding as if he was. I was explaining why people may be interpreting his post that way.

I did not mean to put words in his mouth. But most people on online forums will read a bit more into people's posts than what is there ... that may make people jump to conclusions. Someone claiming they can't see how their post would be interpreted that way deserves to have someone explain why that may be ... it allows them to clarify their opinion and ultimately cut the tension in the long run. YMMV IMHO and other defusing addendums.

 

[vagabundo]

A 20th level AD&D fighter has nothing more than great fighting skill (extra attacks) incredible luck and magical protections (hp) that allow him to outlast many normal men in a fight.

It's more than that. A fighter at that level - and I'm going from a rusty old memory here - most likely has a flaming sword, girdle and other magical items, possibly magic boots.

He would most likely be able to lift and throw large boulders, possibly fly or move very fast, take enormous amount of damage that would kill 20 normal men.

Sounds pretty super to me, now I dont see how 4e really changes this except that the powers are more inherant in the class, rather than the magic items that characters were expected to pick up along their adventuring career.

Moving on to 3e and using the skill system/min-maxing things could start getting supernatural between levels 3 to 6. Acomplishing feats of strenght or skill that is not possible in our world.

I feel it is unfair to label 4e as the "super" edition when all editions of the game suffer something similar. Maybe that was not your intention, but it seemed that way.

 

[Raven Crowking]

ACTUALLY, I am responding to him.

Obviously.

I am explaining how what he wrote can be seen as aggressive.

Pot meet kettle?

I mean, don't you think it is a wee, teensy bit ironic that you are "explaining how what he wrote can be seen as aggressive" in a way that can so easily be seen as (shall we say) much, much more aggressive?

I did not mean to put words in his mouth. But most people on online forums will read a bit more into people's posts than what is there ... that may make people jump to conclusions. Someone claiming they can't see how their post would be interpreted that way deserves to have someone explain why that may be

Or, perhaps, they are just asking that their posts be viewed with the gentle eye one would imagine most of us would want our posts viewed with?


RC

 

[WalterKovacs]

Or, perhaps, they are just asking that their posts be viewed with the gentle eye one would imagine most of us would want our posts viewed with?

I see, I must have just been reading it wrong

Regardless, there seems to have been quite a few people that had a nerve touched by that post. Pointing out why apparently a number of people may have read it that way can allow people to know how other people may interpret their posts in the future. It's up to anyone else how to use that, whether to make themselves more clear, or not really mind if certain people get irritated by posts worded in that fashion.

I don't claim to be perfect, but I can explain how some can react when they read something like that in a truthful manner.

 

[Scutisorex]

I don't think 4e is any better or worse than any other edition of D&D... all had their charms and flaws.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Outside of the "everyone uses powers" scope of 4E, there are tone and flavor reasons why 4E is so supers focused. The mechanics behind ability use only accounts for the most obvious reasons.

1) The PC's are special. The world works differently for our heroes than anyone else. Heroism is thus an intrinsic trait rather than a definition based on decisions and actions of the character.

2) The world "assumes" the PC's are heroes. PC's could be altruistic heroes or merely treasure seekers looking for fortune and glory in editions past. Heroic play was the expected norm but not as heavily presented in the default implied setting. The PC's hero status was determined by thier actions.

3) The fact that powers can be used to cause non-lethal damage at will even when they are obviously unsuited for it (fireball) is very similar to superpowers doing "stun" damage to villans.

 

[pawsplay]

Aren't you then arguing that truth is simply opinion? That's not something that most people want to agree with. To be truth, it must square with something objective, or at least transcendental.

No, I am not arguing that. What I am arguing is simply that in addition to something objective, there is a level of interpretation to truth. We simply do not have senses, powers of reason, or any other faculties that allow us to directly apprehend truth. This is the basis of the pragmatism of William James, and it is also a puzzle examined in Plato's analogy of the divided line in The Republic.

Truth should be verifiable and objective, but it is not merely a collection of facts. Truth presupposes the existence of a logical being who can interpret whether something is true or not. Where Plato and James disagree is that James argued we each have our own truth, our own reasonable interpretation of our senses and known facts. Whereas Plato felt we could each arrive at the highest truth through reason alone. For instance, he supposed that one piece of art could be judged as absolutely more beautiful than another. Human history seems to favor James' viewpoint.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

No, I am not arguing that. What I am arguing is simply that in addition to something objective, there is a level of interpretation to truth. We simply do not have senses, powers of reason, or any other faculties that allow us to directly apprehend truth. This is the basis of the pragmatism of William James, and it is also a puzzle examined in Plato's analogy of the divided line in The Republic.

Truth should be verifiable and objective, but it is not merely a collection of facts. Truth presupposes the existence of a logical being who can interpret whether something is true or not. Where Plato and James disagree is that James argued we each have our own truth, our own reasonable interpretation of our senses and known facts. Whereas Plato felt we could each arrive at the highest truth through reason alone. For instance, he supposed that one piece of art could be judged as absolutely more beautiful than another. Human history seems to favor James' viewpoint.

And yet, the problem here is that someone has come on the forum and basically made the "4e is too anime/videogame/superhero/whatever" argument (which I believe has Godwinned the thread, per Remathilis's criteria), and when challenged on this point, responded with something akin to "don't blame me, it's just the truth!"

This has nothing to do with a philosophical discussion of the nature of truth, and defending the poster's position by trying to turn it into a disagreement over the conception of truth only obfuscates the issue. The poster in question has claimed that the truth is best represented by his opinions on the subject. He also suggests that his opinions, by virtue of being the truth, are objective, and not up for debate. This is transparently false, and I don't suppose that any definition of truth other than "whatever the speaker is claiming to be true" will support his position.

He's subsequently given a few reasons why he thinks that his 4e = supers argument holds water, but as far as I'm concerned they're at best his opinion and at worst spurious. At any rate, they hardly provide the weight that one might expect from The Truth.

 

[The Little Raven]

1) The PC's are special. The world works differently for our heroes than anyone else. Heroism is thus an intrinsic trait rather than a definition based on decisions and actions of the character.

First off, the "world" doesn't work differently. The game works differently.

Secondly, PCs have always been special in D&D. That's why they can take a number of blows from a giant warchief that would kill an equal number of normal men.

2) The world "assumes" the PC's are heroes.

Again, the world assumes nothing. The game assumes that the PCs are heroes, yes, but you are using the wrong definition of hero. They're using hero in the classical sense, where heroes are extraordinary people, not the modern sense, where heroes are good guys. Hercules was a hero, but he was also a total douchebag.

Just like previous editions favored good tendencies over evil ones ("Chaotic Evil is the worst alignment because..."), so too does the latest edition.

3) The fact that powers can be used to cause non-lethal damage at will even when they are obviously unsuited for it (fireball) is very similar to superpowers doing "stun" damage to villans.

So, a magic user being able to manipulate his magic so that he can prevent from killing a needed hostage immediately turns it into super hero comics? That has to be the weakest attempt at a justification I have seen this entire thread.