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

[Fifth Element]

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

To be clear, I am implicitly discussing a subset of all possible RPGs. An RPG written by a 5-year-old could be called objectively poor. But I did assume the context of widely-played RPGs, since the discussion began with D&D.

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

I'd suggest, as I did above, just the opposite. If you think something is objectively true, then you expect no discussion, because you're proclaiming truth. If someone argues, presumably you say "No, my statement is objectively true."

If you're dealing with subjectivity, you can discuss *why* you prefer one system over another. "Here's why I like to play 4E" is full of subjective judgements, but also full of things to discuss.

 

[billd91]

...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.

But wouldn't that imply that all games can be objectively judged, ranked, and placed in a hierarchy of quality? Which is a better game: Dread or 4th edition D&D? MegaTraveller or Toon? Call of Cthulhu or Dogs in the Vineyard?

 

[Hussar]

But wouldn't that imply that all games can be objectively judged, ranked, and placed in a hierarchy of quality? Which is a better game: Dread or 4th edition D&D? MegaTraveller or Toon? Call of Cthulhu or Dogs in the Vineyard?

Well, I do suppose you have to compare like to like and, just like any genre style conversation, there's going to be stuff lying about that doesn't fit quite right. For example, comparing Dread to D&D (any edition) is pretty difficult since, while they do both fall under the umbrella of RPG, they are very different play experiences.

Now, if you narrow down the criteria, and asked which one objectively has mechanics to produce a better zombie horror game, I think the props really have to go do Dread. They should, that's what Dread is supposed to do. However, if your criteria is "Heroic Fantasy" then Dread isn't really a good game for that.

And I do think that's an objective judgement. The Dread resolution mechanics, such as they are, don't lend themselves to an ongoing, multi-session campaign where the protagonists are supposed to survive and thrive. D&D, OTOH, has a number of mechanics - levels for one - which do lend themselves quite well towards that goal.

You're right in a way. "Game X is objectively better than Game Y" is pretty hard to defend. As Lanefan said earlier, which is a better truck - a snowplow or a bus? But, once you actually define some goals and parameters, you can most certainly rank games based on those parameters. Call of Cthulu would make a terrible system for playing D&D. The idea that your character gets progressively weaker and eventually dies (or is removed from play somehow) is antithetical to the goals of D&D play.

Does that mean D&D is better than CoC? No, of course not. It IS objectively better at doing heroic fantasy though.

At the end of the day, it's not unreasonable to discuss game mechanics in objective terms so long as you define the goals that those mechanics are attempting to reach.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To be clear, I am implicitly discussing a subset of all possible RPGs. An RPG written by a 5-year-old could be called objectively poor. But I did assume the context of widely-played RPGs, since the discussion began with D&D.

While not as bad as the others I mentioned, RIFTS is a widely-played RPG that is noted for having bad mechanics, including some that contributing designers claim were not playtested at all.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But wouldn't that imply that all games can be objectively judged, ranked, and placed in a hierarchy of quality?

No.

There are some creations in the hobby- just like in literature, music, art, poetry, etc.- that are so bad there is nearly universal consensus on their awfulness.*. Ditto the opposite end of the scale. I may not care for the writings of a particular author or the music of a composer, but I can appreciate and respect the talent and skill involved.

Beyond the extremes, however, the variables of math AND personal taste interactw & branch so much- rules light, max crunch, etc.- that ranking becomes objectively impossible.








* consensus is as good as it gets- we humans are notorious for disagreeing on scientifically verifiable facts, much less something as fuzzy as game design.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I respectfully disagree.

If you'd care to discuss how a system that is balanced, consistent and functional at all levels isn't better on a technical level than one that's inconsistent, balanced only at mid single-digit levels, and functional only with careful interpretation, let alone one that's inconsistent, never quite balanced, and functional only with substantial rule changes, I'll listen.

We don't even have to get into edition warring, we could keep on a theoretical/hypothetical level...

 

[billd91]

If you'd care to discuss how a system that is balanced, consistent and functional at all levels isn't better on a technical level than one that's inconsistent, balanced only at mid single-digit levels, and functional only with careful interpretation, let alone one that's inconsistent, never quite balanced, and functional only with substantial rule changes, I'll listen.

I find that the consistency takes out some of the dynamism in the earlier editions. The game changes (significantly) over time, in part, because there isn't the same style of consistency driving the numbers.

The way the 4e system is balanced narrows the game's potential applicability to a single band within the fantasy genre while the editions that focus less on mechanical balance are a better fit to a wider variety of fantasy applications.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you'd care to discuss how a system that is balanced, consistent and functional at all levels isn't better on a technical level than one that's inconsistent, balanced only at mid single-digit levels, and functional only with careful interpretation, let alone one that's inconsistent, never quite balanced, and functional only with substantial rule changes, I'll listen.

We don't even have to get into edition warring, we could keep on a theoretical/hypothetical level...

First, I'd say it depends upon what kind of game you want to run. If, for example, you intend to run a game simulating an author's novel in which there were characters of vast disparity of power, 4Ed's design would do a spectacularly bad job of emulating that setting. I have often said that I wished Palladium would get bought up by another company and revised with different rules, but I wouldn't wish a 4Ed style system on that setting. Mechanically, it simply wouldn't fit.

And there are a LOT of worlds in fantasy literature in which balance simply isn't on the menu. For those in which balance IS present, I can easily tone down an unbalanced system. It is much harder- for me, at least- to supercharge certain aspects of a balanced system and still make it fun for everyone.

Second, having played 4Ed and enjoying & respecting it on a certain level, I have to say it reminds me of lessons learned when I tried my own hand at game design, namely, sometimes too much balance is bad. It can lead to stagnation and stalemates in gameplay. And one of the consistent complaints levied at 4Ed is its combats can be a boring grind. As I've played the game over the past few years I've seen it happen in person. There is something in 4Ed's strict adherence to balance that has made combat less fun for many players.

Part of it (and only part of it- I don't have all the remedies) is that one roll per attack sequence that predominates in 4Ed. This happens in other games, too, but 4Ed's version just seems to drag for some reason. I have often posted about a battle against some harpies that took For. Freakin'. Ever. Because we couldnt roll for crap. And it was a low-level encounter, so we were only rolling once per turn. But despite the combat's length, it was a fun battle.**

I have yet to have a combat in 4Ed that was both long AND fun.

Simply put, combat lacks sparkle.*

And it didn't have to be like this. There are other ways to balance games that are out there. HERO is my game of choice, for instance. Despite combats that can be as long as or longer than 4Ed combats, I've never felt a HERO combat was "grindy." I can say thë same of GURPS, and I don't particularly care for that game at all. There are definitely things about that game I hate, but boring, drawn-out combat wasn't one of them.

A caveat on that, too: while I have used HERO to run all kinds of genres of games, inluding simulating a cross-edition "D&D" fantasy game, i'd be the first to admit that no toolbox RPG- HERO included- will neccesarily better at running a camapaign for a given setting than a RPG designed from the ground up to run a game in that setting.







* no, adding the vampries from Twilight or certain unicorns wouldn't help.

** see post#2 here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/302413-harpies-what-french-toast.html

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Actually, I just followed my own link back to its origin, and I think I figured one thing out: in 4Ed, it's nearly impossible to surprise yourself and your partymates by simply screwing up.

That first mention of that story is in a thread in which people talk about Delayed Blast Fireballs that were delayed too long and caught the party (me), bouncing lightning bolts that kill as many PCs as NPCs and so forth. 4Ed seems to have excised that bit of chaos.

I mean, even on those occasions when I have seen 4EdmPCs take friendly fire (my bad, again), the same game design decision that made sure casters can't steal melee types' thunder by acing the encounter with a single spell means my unintended targets can also shrug off the occasional mistargeted spell.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Actually, I just followed my own link back to its origin, and I think I figured one thing out: in 4Ed, it's nearly impossible to surprise yourself and your partymates by simply screwing up.

Hah, you'd be surprised. If you haven't seen the party's Striker constantly getting into trouble and attacking random targets instead of focusing on killing one target first - all without NPCs forcing him to do so thanks to their own abilities and tatics!

*sigh*

I'd say for this type of people, D&D 4 isn't the best game, at least not in combat. They're not tactical minded enough.