So it's the old "Edition War" excuse to dismiss people?

[Herschel]

That makes it entirely academic, though, doesn't it?

Yes, no and everything in-between.

The point of an RPG is not to have a mathematically "better" RPG, it's to play it and have fun.

Yes and no. A mathematically better game facilitates fun for many also.

What's the point of calling an RPG "better" if said definition does not mean it's any better at doing what it's designed to do?

Because it's an accurate word for the meaning intended. Unfortunately it's also an accurate word for other meanings because English is a goofy language or multiple meanings and exceptions.

What I'm saying is, I reject any definition of a "better" RPG that does not take into consideration what an RPG is for.

Again, two different meanings of the word. From my perspective, "tighter" would be a "better" term to use but it sounds goofy.

 

[Harlock]

Mechanics can also be objective: a FRPG including a weapon called a "greatsword" that, by rule, cannot cut or kill any character in the game, unlike the "butterknife" in the same RPG is an obvious and objective flaw*. It does not in any way model what it purports to model.





* Unless the game's designers are using non-standard definitions of "greatsword" and "butterknife", of course.

I haven't seen anyone arguing otherwise. And the fact that there needs to be a metric by which to measure, as you mentioned the designer's subjective meaning, sort of proves that some folks may be measuring by a different standard, which is of course, a subjective goalpost if it does have objective measures. That's why people like different games, or editions, for different reasons. Which is why I find all of this so amusing in the first place as people claim superiority over one facet or another that someone else obviously finds subjectively worse by their objective measure.

This got me to thinking a bit, which I know to be a dangerous thing, but I share my thoughts anyway. One can claim that one book is objectively better than another. Book A has no typos. It has a lot of words, characters that do things, a cover with artwork that clearly depicts the feel of the novel. Book B had some editing problems, a typo or two per chapter, and a cover that in no way relates to the story. That said, Book A is pedantic, pedestrian, filled with one dimensional characters, and has a plot that doesn't interest you, but would be loved by 13-year-old cat girls that say "kawaii" all the time. Book B is Tolkein with typos so we forgive it's objective shortcomings. No version of Dungeons and Dragons is quantifiably better than another, unless you introduce some measure or metric, i.e. profits, numbers of copies of core books sold, number of letters sent in by players saying good job, etc.

 

[Odhanan]

It's only fair for you to give your side of the story, Iain. Since you keep on posting on the RPG Site, we must do something right as far as you're concerned, however. We might just be entertaining to you, or you like to get your time away from grandma's earshot. I guess the only way to find that out is to visit the site to see what that whole back-and-forth is about.

 

[Harlock]

Again, two different meanings of the word. From my perspective, "tighter" would be a "better" term to use but it sounds goofy.

Monte Cook mentioned that term in his rather excellent blog post as well...

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes and no. A mathematically better game facilitates fun for many also.

For many, it does. But a game that is better for many is not objectively "better" now, is it? If it was objectively better in a meaningful way, it would be better for everyone.

Because it's an accurate word for the meaning intended. Unfortunately it's also an accurate word for other meanings because English is a goofy language or multiple meanings and exceptions.

Absolutely, so it pays to be precise. When someone says "4E is objectively better than 3E" but means only the maths, you'd better say that big and loud up front, because that's not what someone reading it is going to think when they see it.

 

[Fifth Element]

Monte Cook mentioned that term in his rather excellent blog post as well...

It's certainly a better term for what is trying to be said.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I haven't seen anyone arguing otherwise.

Fifth Element's statement:

I'm very analytical by nature, but I remain extremely skeptical of a claim that an RPG can be objectively better than another.

...would seem to indicate a belief that there are no RPGs out there that we can point to that have objectively poor design.

While I chose a silly and nonexistent exaggeration to illustrate my point, the fact remains that the games I pointed out upthread are known to have objectively bad mechanics- some to the point of being offensive.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1. Suggesting the edition wars are over merely because 4e's had to surrender takes a rather narrow view of the wars;

True. I was speaking only of the 3.5/4e split. That's what the 'edition war' is usually describing.

It's true that there are folks out there who hate 3.x and 4e equally, and as vehemently as the 3.5 warriors hated 4e, and, for them, the war is not over, they still have to destroy/suppress 3.x (good luck on that with the SRD out there, BTW).

The OP was specifically talking about the 4e side of the war though, how any criticism of 4e, specifically is labeled 'edition warring.' At this point, it's really not, it's more analogous to ongoing violence by occupying troops after a war has ended.

'Edition Cleansing,' perhaps?

[quoite]2. Saying 4e will never be supported again may be premature, in that 4e has something going for it no other edition really had: WotC has poured a pile of money into online support for it and it's hard to imagine them simply throwing all that away.[/quote] considering the loss of /one/ programmer shut down the development of the on-line tools for years, I think the amount of money they invested in it was pretty small.

5e will certainly have on-line support, too. It might be that the existing on-line tools are adapted to support both, if that's practical. Otherwise 5e will have to be developed independently, and all available resources will go to that. It's easy enough for WotC to leave the existing stuff up, but even that requires maintenance, and will have to end eventually.

Of course, practical or not, the goal of 'uniting' the player base around 5e won't be served by keeping an alternative to it available.

2a. There's also the possibility that Hasbro will sell off (or farm out) the D&D franchise, at which point anything can happen depending largely on who buys it and what they want to do with it.

It would be a radical reversal from their past behavior, but, yes, anything is possible.

3. No edition is dead as long as someone keeps playing it.

Yeah, an RPG's 'life' is not exactly like an actual life - dead is a matter of degree. The OGL lets 3.5 be supported indefinitely by 3pps, and has been adapted to do something similar for prior eds via retro-clones. 4e is unlikely to get treatment. The GSL is much more restrictive, and the nature of 4e design, which is very systematic and balanced, doesn't lend itself to the open-source development environment. You could retro-clone 4e and get something that 'feels' a bit like it, but it's unlikely to capture 4e's strengths, which were the result of design principles that even WotC found onerous after only two years. It's not something a few enthused amateurs are going to be able to replicate.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Quality", in that sense, is a human-subjective value, not an objective one.

There is a difference between qualitative and quantitative measures, true, but it doesn't prevent making an informed judgement.

I can compare that first string (String A) to another (String B). I can tell you which is longer, which is heavier, which has higher tensile strength. But, I cannot tell you which is technically a "better" string, because that depends upon what you're going to use the string for.

Precisely. 4e is technically a better mechanical system for use in an RPG. It would not be as good a tactical board game, and would make a terrible large-scale wargame. As a physics textbook it would be a big fat 0, and as a geometry text, worse than useless. You could say the same things about 3.5 - though it'd make a slightly better physics or geometry text book, and, obviously, not quite as good an RPG system.

That's why I say it's the technical aspects that have been improving with each edition. Setting, tone, feel, etc... they're much fuzzier. There are intangibles that that have nothing to do with the game itself, but only with, for instance, its timing in the marketplace. But whether mechanics work as written and do what they set out to is not nearly so hard to judge.


And, again, I will point out that the assertion of absolute subjectivity renders all discussion moot. So, if you /really/ believe that, why participate?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

4e is technically a better mechanical system for use in an RPG.

I respectfully disagree.