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

[Nullzone]

Honestly, the very notion that this thread started on is inane at best; the development of 5e has precious little to do with any objective value of good or bad in the existing edition(s) and everything to do with the basic concept of wanting to make money.

WotC is a business and they are interested in bringing in cash. They are aware that some people dislike their current offerings, and would like to attempt to draw them back somehow; furthermore, new material means that even the people who do like the current offerings are just as likely to buy in again on the notion that they liked the previous one.

As for what defines an edition war, to me it happens the moment a value judgment occurs between two games in an attempt to demonstrate that one is objectively better than the other. This is a waste of everyone's time, as not only is an objective view impossible, it would be irrelevant since every single personal experience would be subjectively colored anyway.

When I look at a game system, I ask two questions:

1) Did I have fun?
2) Do I understand how the mechanics and story meet and create the narrative?

If both are yes, then the game is worth my time and I would play it again. That's all that matters.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

True, and its fans often cite the wonky mechanics as one reason they love it. To each their own.

Gimli: That's not balanced! Why are fighters always getting nerfed! Wizards get to do all the cool stuff.

I thought that was 3E? Isn't 4E the one where everything is too balanced and samey?

Frodo: OK, I run (pushes himself three squares over on grid). What is my XP reward?

Yeah, darn 4E for introducing XP. What?

 

[Umbran]

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

If there's "judgement" involved, then it isn't objective. Objective measures don't require human judgement.

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

And again, we return to the string.

Is everyone playing RPGs (and D&D) in the same way? Same playstyle? No.

Maybe for how *YOU* like to play RPGs, it is mechanically superior. And that's great. But you're bordering on arrogance to say you can claim it is superior for everyone else's use.

That, ultimately, is what gets people upset, you know - you claiming you know what is good for them better than they do themselves. That's pretty darned high-and-mighty.

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.

Back to the string we go. Or, maybe now we'll talk methods of locomotion....

I put a pair of beat up sneakers in my driveway, next to a 2001 Saturn SL1 and a 2012 Ferrari. I suspect you'll argue that the Ferrari is the technically superior locomotion solution. More highly advanced engineering, capable of superior acceleration and greater top speeds than either of the others.

But, I tell you, I want to go jogging! Am I supposed to strap a pair of Ferraris to my feet? Or, maybe I want to commute to work - while in your estimation the Ferrari is still technically superior, I can point out its city-street gas-guzzling nature is entirely inappropriate for commuting.

That last isn't an issue of tone or feel. It isn't intangible. It is technical, but *you* didn't foresee the value of that technical point. What technical measures are superior depends upon the desired use! Since you cannot factor in *all* desired uses, you are not in a position to claim technical superiority for one set of rules over the other.

Or, perhaps I can put it even more clearly: Which is technically superior - a high-end non-stick skillet, or an orange?

The thing is, ultimately, an RPG exists to produce a human experience. All technical qualities of the system exist for that goal. They have no value except in terms of that goal - the quality, then is subjective, as the desired experiences vary from person to person.

 

[Dannager]

And once we have full agreement among reviewers about which games are best, we can say that games can be judged objectively. If it's absolutely possible to judge whether one game is better than another, objectively, then we would only need one game reviewer. He would do the checklist or whatever, and figure out which game is best. But instead we have many reviewers, each with their own preferences and biases, each rating games differently.

Just because most people prefer a particular game does not mean it is objectively better than other games. That's not what objectively means.

Notice that I purposefully avoided the use of the word "objective". I'd prefer to eschew in favor of the words "useful" or "practical". I'm not saying that it's possible to objectively judge whether games are better or worse than each other (though, honestly, you probably could if you came up with an operationalized definition of "better" along with some decent metrics, but some people might take issue with your definition). I'm saying that trying to poke holes in this by saying "But that's not being objective!" is pretty pointless. Who cares if it's objective or not? We don't need to be literally objective in our declarative statements to make useful generalizable judgments.

 

[B.T.]

4e has objectively better production values--it's a much cleaner layout than previous editions of D&D, and its artwork is much higher quality. Doesn't make it a better game, but what Tony Vargas said is true.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Vernon374
has no status.

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 10
Novice (Lvl 1)

Reported

 

[Dannager]

But reviews are subjective by their very nature!

Of course they are. So?

I might add that several game designers disagree with you as well. Most recently and notably, Monte Cook. Specifically, I quote:
emphasis added.

Reviews are subjective. Mechanics can be and are subjective. Saying otherwise is just plain ignoring the facts.

Yes, yes, it's all subjective. As I've pointed out, though, using "It's all subjective!" to try and end a discussion over whether one game is superior to another is just as bad as using "This is objectively better!" to try and do the same.

 

[Dannager]

The mechanical attentions that 4e has pretty much fixes the notion that you are going to play precisely the way the designers want you to. Even if you don't want to play that way. And no, most fantasy literature doesn't work the way the 4e rules do.

Most fantasy literature doesn't work the way any edition of D&D does.

As for Lord of the Rings in 4e:

Gandalf: This foe is beyond any of you. Run!
Gimli: That's not balanced! Why are fighters always getting nerfed! Wizards get to do all the cool stuff.
Aragorn: Yeah, this encounter should be designed for my level!
Pippin: Oh, I can still use my daily on it! I haven't used it yet.
Frodo: What is the goal of this encounter anyway?
Gandalf: Run!!!
Frodo: OK, I run (pushes himself three squares over on grid). What is my XP reward?
Balrog: >>smashes and burns everyone<<
Whole Adventuring Party: HEALING SURGE, please!

Excellent. Now tell me your favorite edition of D&D so that I can similarly and childishly lampoon it.

 

[Harlock]

If there's "judgement" involved, then it isn't objective. Objective measures don't require human judgement.



And again, we return to the string.

Is everyone playing RPGs (and D&D) in the same way? Same playstyle? No.

Maybe for how *YOU* like to play RPGs, it is mechanically superior. And that's great. But you're bordering on arrogance to say you can claim it is superior for everyone else's use.

That, ultimately, is what gets people upset, you know - you claiming you know what is good for them better than they do themselves. That's pretty darned high-and-mighty.




Back to the string we go. Or, maybe now we'll talk methods of locomotion....

I put a pair of beat up sneakers in my driveway, next to a 2001 Saturn SL1 and a 2012 Ferrari. I suspect you'll argue that the Ferrari is the technically superior locomotion solution. More highly advanced engineering, capable of superior acceleration and greater top speeds than either of the others.

But, I tell you, I want to go jogging! Am I supposed to strap a pair of Ferraris to my feet? Or, maybe I want to commute to work - while in your estimation the Ferrari is still technically superior, I can point out its city-street gas-guzzling nature is entirely inappropriate for commuting.

That last isn't an issue of tone or feel. It isn't intangible. It is technical, but *you* didn't foresee the value of that technical point. What technical measures are superior depends upon the desired use! Since you cannot factor in *all* desired uses, you are not in a position to claim technical superiority for one set of rules over the other.

Or, perhaps I can put it even more clearly: Which is technically superior - a high-end non-stick skillet, or an orange?

The thing is, ultimately, an RPG exists to produce a human experience. All technical qualities of the system exist for that goal. They have no value except in terms of that goal - the quality, then is subjective, as the desired experiences vary from person to person.

I couldn't XP you, so I'll simply quote this in the hopes that others will learn what objective means and stop with the nonsense.

 

[Harlock]

Of course they are. So?



Yes, yes, it's all subjective. As I've pointed out, though, using "It's all subjective!" to try and end a discussion over whether one game is superior to another is just as bad as using "This is objectively better!" to try and do the same.

Ignoring the parts where I agree that there are objective measures to make it seem like I said it is all subjective is, well, demonstrably false. One has only to go back and read. I'm certainly not trying to "end a discussion", simply pointing out that there are and can be different points of view.

And, in the end, I have found that the best DMs can make a majority of the editions work for their group once they become familiar enough with the system and if they are willing to work the system (adding, removing) for their PCs' and the game world's benefit.