Realism! Versamilitude! Other Words!

[TheSeer]

A few aspects:

#1: People who are down on 4e entirely largely *don't* post here. Those who remain are those who find at least something redeeming about the edition, even if it's just a place to loot for house rules and art. They're not coming here specifically to harsh your buzz, they're coming here to discuss things that they might find useful about the next edition, and things they won't.

Hmm...so you are saying that the OP just made up his complaints then?

#2: This is a discussion board. 4e is a contentious issue. Just as people called out 3e for various problems, people will call out 4e for various problems. Even big fans. If you don't want to hear about the problems (or the praises), this forum is probably not for you. You will have to live with people dissenting, and being very vocal and very repetetive about it. That is part of why we have an ignore feature.

I believe I acknowledged just that fact when I said:

First off, this isn't directed right at you, but is more a general comment.

I'm not in the camp that says if you don't like it pick up your toys and go home. Healthy discussion is a great thing. If you have an open mind and are waiting to see more to make up your mind, that's great, and expressing your like or dislike is just as valid as someone who wholeheartedly embraces 4E.

#3: Again, you should be responding to the content of the post, not the percieved motives of the poster. Unless they're violating some forum rule, they're totally allowed to spew venom here. You can respond to the venom, you can slap 'em on ignore, you can just not read it, whatever, they do have a right to post it here. Discuss it, report it, or ignore it. Don't try to be the Party Police kicking out everyone who isn't dressed right. They have every right to be here that you do.

Could you please point out where in my post I assigned motives to anyone? Again, as I said above I am *NOT* in the camp that says to pick up your toys to go home and even explicitly state that it is their right not to like it. It is funny that you champion their rights to complain as they feel about the game, but then take me to task about my being the "Party Police" when I complain about how I feel.

 

[TheSeer]

Now I will admit the thread crapping is annoying from both sides. For example someone starts a thread tell me why you are looking forward to the change and you get people coming in saying why they hate the changes but vice versa is true as well you get threads on why are you not switching and you get people coming in and telling them they are wrong and this is why they should switch.

This is pretty much what I was talking about. I have seen it happen (both ways mind you) where someone creates a post "List all the things you like about 4E" or "List all the things you dislike about 4E"and midway there is a threadjack by someone who is rabidly pro/anti 4E. I know enough to keep my nose out of the later since I like 4E. I'm just wondering why some people can't do the same.

And as far as the mellow goes, it's more of a "If there is a place to go to find out the latest, ENWorld is it!" and finding an interesting tidbit of data, but sometimes wanting to avoid reading because of having to wade through the flames.

Again, it goes both ways.

 

[Mistwell]

There is no dissent in a vacuum. Dissent, by definition, involves something else.

Right. So Dissent itself is valueless. It can be a tool for good, for evil, or neither. But you claimed it was good in itself. It's not. If it were good in itself, it would have value even without something else.

Right-o.

I get that you'd like 4E critics to shut up.

No you didn't get that. Because over and over I carefully said to you that I think there are a lot of good reasons to critique 4e, but that "influencing 5e" isn't one of those good reasons. And you replied and quoted back those sections to me, so I know you read them. So, explain why you just played that strawman?

I don't really get why, and I'll not state my guesses as to why, but I suppose it's irrelevant, because 4E critics aren't going to shut up. On the other hand, you have the Ultimate Power to not read them. Enjoy it!

I don't want you to shut up. I never said, or implied, that 4e critics should shut up. I would however appreciate you not mischaracterizing things I say to make your point. It's rude and disrespectful to your peers.

 

[Mistwell]

So it's an "attributing motives" thing?

"Ah! I see you have a problem with the new edition! You say it is because of X, but I know why you're REALLY angry! You're REALLY angry because you're a reactionary emotional goofball and I am not! If you would not be a reactionary emotional goofball, you would see that everything about 4e is so absolutely magnificent that you will have to change pants after you experience it! To think otherwise is just being annoying and arguing for the sake of arguing! Don't argue! You're not really having the problems you say you're having! You're just a scared little nerd affraid of change!"

You know, you misquoted what I wrote, clipping out a lot of context including even my name. I don't appreciate that. That is not what I said. You've exaggerated what I said to the extreme. My comment was not about "you have a problem with the new edition". It was nowhere near a claim that it applies to all 4e critics (it was specific to one critique) nor did it apply to even all people making that particular critique.

You know guys, you're making this board not fun. If I cannot say something without folks mischaracterizing it to make their point, it just doesn't feel like the EnWorld community I've loved for so many years. You are my peers. You are my friends. We've shared a lot of opinions and even life stories over the years. WHY do you feel this is appropriate behavior? And yeah, I could report this stuff to the mods...but this is one of those issues where the Mod would have to go dig through all of this thread and figure out who said what, and that's asking a lot. It sure would be better if people just voluntarily stopped doing this sort of thing.

That's overblown, and I know this is the 4e forum and all, but do you think it would be too much to ask that we don't try to psychoanalyze people on a message board, and instead take their statements at face value unless they deliberately ask otherwise?

I gave you the reason why I felt it would be helpful for that particular issue. You cut the part where I gave that reason, and didn't respond to it. So I will let that explanation stand, and if you care to respond to it then fine. And if not...well, it's not like you don't already have your answer, and we can just agree to disagree. For this particular case, I think the psychology would be helpful to both the person involved and the board itself.

I get that it's annoying to have to hear unfounded criticisms over and over again, but really that's all the OP is: an unfounded criticism we've heard over and over again. I'm discussing it in the hopes that some posters will actually start bringing attention to where the interesting conversation is instead of trotting out the same tired shallow criticisms, not of the poster's position or their facts, but of the posters themselves. There's been plenty of threads delving into the anime argument, the videogame argument, and we hear those criticisms a lot less around these parts after those massive threads beat the dead horse to a pulp. (I can't remember the last time I seriously saw a poster arguing that anything was "too anime." And I don't have an ignore list.)

The OP has virtually nothing to do with the actual criticisms levied against 4e. I'm calling that out in the hopes that more people who engage in the 4e debate will avoid a pat defense that doesn't actually defend.

The interesting conversation isn't about whether or not 3e simulated real life. It's about the differences between 3e and 4e with regards to people being able to suspend disbelief. For some people, 3e does enough, and 4e, so far, does not. Talk about the differences. Going off half-cocked about how 3e isn't really realisitic so everyone should just shut up about 4e not being believable is pretty useless. It's just screaming at people that their opinions are invalid, and it's untrue.

What you find to be the interesting part of this conversation notwithstanding, some of the rest of us differ in your view of what part is interesting. You discuss the parts you like, others will discuss the parts they like.

Saying that you can divine someone's motives from an aggregate of the posts you've seen from them is internet psychoanalysis, and, worse, assigning them motives, and, at the bottom line, insulting.

I disagree, and it's not psychoanalysis (that is a specific thing, and this is clearly not that thing), and gave some reasons I feel are very compelling for doing what I suggested. If you find it insulting, well, I am sorry about that. It was not intended that way.

So even if you can, the discussion is in addressing the content of their post, not the motivations of the poster.

And if you don't want to do that, don't read it, or slap 'em on Ignore. Your brain may thank you for it.

I didn't discuss the motivations of this poster. I was talking about a larger issue.

 

[Mistwell]

Is this where he was very clear about it?



Looks a lot to me like he's saying "an argument is a worthwhile argument if the other guy eventually comes to agree with my assessment that he's not being objective." Am I paraphrasing the above unfairly?

He's basically telling people to keep quiet about their problems with 4E unless talking about their problems with 4E helps those people realize how wrong they are.

First, the context was a very specific thing, not all critiques of 4e, and not even all people offering that particular critique. Second, I also said: "I think there are legit reasons to raise an issue with 4e rules...but "influencing 5e" isn't one of them." and "I have no problem if you like 3e more than 4e. "

I am not sure why that was unclear. Shall I rephrase it to make it even more clear? Did you miss me saying those things?

 

[fnwc]

Maybe you've got them all on ignore, but there are several prominent posters in the 4e forum who never have anything good to say about the game.

Yeah, I don't get the people who spend hours on the forum simply bashing the game. It's obvious that 4E is not for them, which is valid and fine, but why spend the effort? Criticism is good, but I don't really see the point if you've absolutely decided it's not for you.

Is it the audience they love? Personally, if I *hated* 4E and had already decided I wasn't going to play it, I would probably spend my time in the 3E forums doing something constructive.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Could you please point out where in my post I assigned motives to anyone?

No, because I was responding to your post in the same vein that you were responding to Elf Witch's. Not against anyone specifically, just against the general idea of "if you don't like 4e, don't post here!" You said you weren't in that camp, it doesn't apply to you.

Hmm...so you are saying that the OP just made up his complaints then?

I'm saying the OP is wrong about many 4e critics and that he's not really helping matters by asserting that 3e wasn't very realistic.

And that if you don't like hearing criticism of the game, you're on the wrong message board.

Ditto that if you don't like hearing praise of the game.

Maybe you've got them all on ignore, but there are several prominent posters in the 4e forum who never have anything good to say about the game.

And there's several prominent posters in the 4e forum who praise everything about the game.

I don't see very many threads saying "If you've already made up your mind and you're going to 4e, why are you still hanging around this forum discussing it?!"

Nor do I see very many posts saying "If you like 4e because it's so gamist, check out htese gamist elements of 3e! See, it's the same game!"

Celtavian is saying 4e is too videogame-y *and* anime in this thread. Check it out -

Yeah, one of the reasons I didn't go into that thread is because it STARTED with the title that isn't really conducive to actual good discussion.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I disagree. I think a lot of the time when people think 3e "did it better", its out of habit, or nostalgia, or emotions about spending money, or emotion about unwelcome change, and not about any actual rules-based basis for thinking 3e "did it better".

This appears to be speculating on the motives of a poster, rather than on the content of the post. You seem to be claiming that when someone doesn't like a change that 4e is making that, a lot of the time it is habit, nostalgia, monetary worries, or general unwelcome change.

You can't read minds, internet posts are a poor place to analyze someone's internal thought process, and speculating on the motives of other posters rather than on the content of their post is exceptionally insulting to the poster.

If you stick to what was said rather than trying to find out why they said it, the conversation can be a little more constructive.

Often the people who make the claim that 3e was "more believable" make other claims, and talk about other issues frequently, that leave an impression that the things motivating them to say that do not jive with the claim that they really thought 3e was more believable on a rules basis.

What else they talk about doesn't really come to bear on the discussion about 4e's lack of believability for them. Addressing the specific matter of 4e's believability (or lack thereof) is more constructive. Otherwise, you're just speculating on motives.

And as such, it's perfectly "useful" to call into question the claim they are making that "3e was more believable" for them.

Actually, it's not. It just derails conversation into talk about 3e, rather than talk about 4e. We can safely assume that if they think 3e was better, that they think 3e was better, because they think 3e was better. Questioning that assumption is pretty insulting, and is ultimately useless because they think that 3e was better.

The reasons 4e departs from the way 3e did things is useful. Mentioning why 4e does things this way instead is useful. Showing how the 4e rule helps more than it hinders is useful.

Telling them that 3e was bad, too, and that they're just afraid of change, are set in their ways, are blinded by nostalgia, or are too worried about money to make a fair judgement on 4e is completely useless, and fairly insulting.

FWIW, the OP isn't actually attributing motives to people, but saying that 3e was bad, too, is STILL useless in the discussion about 4e's changes.

 

[Mistwell]

This appears to be speculating on the motives of a poster, rather than on the content of the post.

Which poster? What post? "I think a lot of the time when people..." is not specific to the motives of a poster or the content of a post. It was a general impression I get sometimes.

You seem to be claiming that when someone doesn't like a change that 4e is making that, a lot of the time it is habit, nostalgia, monetary worries, or general unwelcome change.

For specifically the verisimilitude claim, I am claiming that often (but not always) when you see that claim AND you see that person making other non-rules complaints of the nature I detailed, I feel like they are sometimes doing it out of those motives.

You can't read minds, internet posts are a poor place to analyze someone's internal thought process, and speculating on the motives of other posters rather than on the content of their post is exceptionally insulting to the poster.

Well, people speculate about my motives all the time and I do not get insulted by it. I am sorry you were insulted by it. My intent was not to insult you with it. Heck, I don't even think it was directed at you. However, if you are speaking for other people and them being insulted by it - are you not doing the very thing you find insulting? And why do you keep saying I was not speculating about the content of their posts, when it is the content of their posts which is causing me to make that speculation?

If you stick to what was said rather than trying to find out why they said it, the conversation can be a little more constructive.

In the context of this particular "realism" issue, when the claim is made about an issue where realism does not appear to logically be a material part of the issue (I gave the example of the teleporting cat and color trail, and a fictional poster feeling the color trail was the objectional part that defeats realism while ignoring the whole teleporting cat part) I do not see how the conversation can be more constructive while ignoring the elephant in the room. The elephant in the room is "you just made an outrageous observation about the rules which has no logical basis - while simultaneously making non-outrageous observations about things not about the rules". If we cannot ask "why" a person is behaving rationally about one thing and irrationally about another and speculate that perhaps one has an influence on the other, then all you get is a repeat over and over of the obvious without ever addressing the real issue. We should be free to speculate if rational non-rules outrage is having an undue influence on irrational rules outrage, without feeling like merely presenting the issue is going to be perceived as a dire insult.

What else they talk about doesn't really come to bear on the discussion about 4e's lack of believability for them. Addressing the specific matter of 4e's believability (or lack thereof) is more constructive. Otherwise, you're just speculating on motives.

Yes, I am speculating about motives, and I explained why that might be a more constructive discussion in some very limited circumstances. In general, it's not a good thing to speculate about motives. But specifically, I think an exception should be made when the circumstances call for it like I outlined.

Actually, it's not. It just derails conversation into talk about 3e, rather than talk about 4e. We can safely assume that if they think 3e was better, that they think 3e was better, because they think 3e was better. Questioning that assumption is pretty insulting, and is ultimately useless because they think that 3e was better.

The reasons 4e departs from the way 3e did things is useful. Mentioning why 4e does things this way instead is useful. Showing how the 4e rule helps more than it hinders is useful.

Telling them that 3e was bad, too, and that they're just afraid of change, are set in their ways, are blinded by nostalgia, or are too worried about money to make a fair judgement on 4e is completely useless, and fairly insulting.

FWIW, the OP isn't actually attributing motives to people, but saying that 3e was bad, too, is STILL useless in the discussion about 4e's changes.

Well I think I and others have already responded to this point as to why it is useful.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I never played 1E> I started with 2E and we switched to third what a pain in the arse that was.

The reason I don't like fourth edition Shadowrun is that it does not feel like Shadowrun to me. I am not crazy about some of the rule changes but I could live with that. The new flavor lacks what I want in a Shadowrun game.

Huh. I started with SR1 and felt SR3 was wrong. I guess it wasn't SR enough while still being too much SR. Kind of the "uncanny valley" of SR. SR4 was fine because it was a clean break.

I had a similar dislike of AD&D2e and a fondness for 3e.