Why I really like D&D.

[Fifth Element]

No, the gist of my post was that I am behind those fighting to keep what parts of 4e they like alive in 5e.

Given that you post was specifically addressed to those who favour 4E, those who count it as their favoured edition, it doesn't actually apply to me. It may be good advice for them, but it does have an issue in ascribing motives, which is always problematic. And it doesn't address other reasons why people might react to comments such as TrippyHippy's - those who do not favour 4E, for instance.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I believe the gist of your post is that people are arguing against criticisms of 4E only because they're ardent 4E fans. That's incorrect.

I'd predict it's about 95% correct - if we were to take a poll saying how many people find the phrase '4e isn't a rpg' offensive, the majority that would bother responding would be avowed 4e fans. Hey, lets do it on another thread and find out? (Moderators - that was a joke!)

You went and missed it again. The dispute is not that 4E was divisive, but that every other new edition was as well. Meaning, it's not a 4E issue, it's a new edition issue.

People on this very thread have argued against the notion that 4e has caused any division. The other argument that you have cited, has been addressed by the point that none of the other editions caused anything like the friction seen in the 4e edition wars, and beyond internet debating, the tangible fact is that at least half of D&D sales are actually Pathfinder sales these days - in the wake of 4e. This fact has never occurred before the release of 4e.

Similar to "4E is not an RPG" then?

Well let's put this into an 'of-the-head' perspective. How do you define a RPG? On one level, you could argue that playing Warhammer Fantasy Battle is an RPG - you play a general in a battle, with miniatures representing the army you select. You have rules to simulate attacks, defenses and powers and there is a strong tactical input into the game. You have a clear objective. You can personalize your army in all sorts of ways. Similarly, there are plenty of computer games that are categorized RPG, and I do recall actual boardgames being made in the 80s which just slapped the term 'RPG' on the box because it was cool at the time.

Yet, none of these replicate a classic D&D RPG experience. Why? - because the freeform, interpersonal aspects of gameplay elevates it from just being a tactical simulation. When people say something is 'not a rpg', the best response is not to take offense, but to actually get to the bottom of what that person means by 'RPG'. Something that has not been done all that well in recent years.

Ascribing motivations is not cool on the boards. And just like the other guy, you're wrong about mine.

Endlessly pontificating isn't cool either - but you ascribe any motivation you like to yourself.

I'm remembering you making the "4E is not an RPG" claim in another thread. If I'm misremembering, my apologies.

I didn't, so apologies accepted. I did say that 4e was badly designed, and lampooned it for running a Lord of the Rings narrative. But I think that was actually quite apt to the point being argued.

 

[TrippyHippy]

If you ever find yourself believing that something is "self-evident", then you are either utterly inept at logic, ignorant, or a delusional loon. Every time you say that all you're getting from anyone who reads your post is a groan or a laugh at your foolishness. You're just making yourself look like an idiot with that line. If you have any self-respect at all, please stop with this. It's embarrassing to watch.

So let's get this straight, if you ever find yourself believing that something (anything?!) is "self-evident"........so for example, I wake up one morning and self-evidently believe myself to exist....then I am either utterly inept at logic, ignorant or a delusional loon?!!

Rene Descartes must be turning in his grave!

Without bothering to respond to the rest of your post, let me just ask - are you arguing with me to engage in a debate, or arguing with me because you don't like what I am saying?

Head or Heart, again.

 

[TwinBahamut]

So let's get this straight, if you ever find yourself believing that something (anything?!) is "self-evident"........so for example, I wake up one morning and self-evidently believe myself to exist....then I am either utterly inept at logic, ignorant or a delusional loon?!!

Yep, pretty much.

More seriously, you're twisting this around a bit more than I meant (and even so you're still kinda wrong...). Most importantly, using the "self-evidence" of something as an argument is silly. That example you use might be the one and only case where something is indeed self-evident, but your existence isn't even self-evident to anyone but you. The inability to reliably prove that other beings perceive reality in the same way as you yourself do, or that every being shares the same quality known as "consciousness" is one of the great matters of philosophy, after all.

So, yeah, I can say that while your existence is probably self-evident to you, I'd call you a loon if you thought it was self-evident to me. You could be some random ENWorlder's joke sock-puppet for all I know.

Without bothering to respond to the rest of your post, let me just ask - are you arguing with me to engage in a debate, or arguing with me because you don't like what I am saying?

Er... What's the difference? People debate because they don't like what other people say. It's kinda the whole point of the thing. The method matters, not the initial intent. Using logic is good, regardless of intent. Relying on the "self-evidence" of a "fact" is bad, regardless of intent. How people conduct themselves and evaluate information is more important than the specific goals they have, at least as far as reasonable debate goes.

Head or Heart, again.

For the record, this kind of argument is an emotional argument that is a close cousin to the ad hominem attack. It is a crude rhetorical device that you are using to dodge logic and degrade your detractors rather than face their arguments. In other words, it's rubbish that I have no reason to respect or answer.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Yep, pretty much.

More seriously, you're twisting this around a bit more than I meant (and even so you're still kinda wrong...). Most importantly, using the "self-evidence" of something as an argument is silly. That example you use might be the one and only case where something is indeed self-evident, but your existence isn't even self-evident to anyone but you. The inability to reliably prove that other beings perceive reality in the same way as you yourself do, or that every being shares the same quality known as "consciousness" is one of the great matters of philosophy, after all.

I used your exact words, and provided the central thesis of Modern Philosophy to prove your own argument was illogical. No twisting involved - face it, your own argument was flawed.

Er... What's the difference?

Er..the difference is whether you are arguing from your head or your heart. Self evidently.

For the record, this kind of argument is an emotional argument that is a close cousin to the ad hominem attack. It is a crude rhetorical device that you are using to dodge logic and degrade your detractors rather than face their arguments. In other words, it's rubbish that I have no reason to respect or answer.

Oh I see, and calling somebody "either utterly inept at logic, ignorant or a delusional loon" isn't an example of ad hominem......?

 

[pemerton]

It's a wonder I even keep coming back to this forum, to be honest... Maybe I should just leave it for a while, since it has hardly been welcoming or interesting as of late.

For what it's worth, I enjoy your posts!

While I can't speak for other fans of 4e who might have very different preferences all I can say is that when talking about D&D Next all I have ever done is talk about my preferences and what it would take for 5e to spur economic action on my part. I don't see what's so problematic about that. My motivations are selfish, but we're talking about a luxury good that provides recreational value here - not a matter of life and death.

I'm honestly not entirely sure what to make of this thread. Should I change my preferences for the good of the community? Why are we still arguing if 4e should have been released? It happened and people bought it or didn't buy it. Play it or don't play it. Since choice reveals value we can safely assume that a significant portion of the market has a preference for 4e over previous editions. Just as a significant portion of the market does not. We are weighing a sunk cost here. 4e cannot be unmade.

For someone with preferences like mine you either need to provide a superior substitute good or provide a non-rival good that appeals to my sensibilities. Perhaps I might be able to consider an edition that provides me with a different play experience that I do not currently have access to. The wrong way to approach gaining my economic intentions is to tell me that my preferences are bad for the game, couch process simulation in narrative language, and defining the games I like out of the hobby I've been involved for half my life. It might help to recover lapsed 3e players, but that's not my concern. I do not make economic decisions based on the utility someone else receives from a good.

And this was excellent! I can't XP it, but it really captures my view as well. (Although I'll add - in my case choices represent not just value but also weakness - I have quite a few 3E books, for example, for someone who never played the system, some because there was stuff I wanted to incorporate into games I was running, but some acquired just out of idle curiosity.)

 

[pemerton]

My hunch is that most players aren't on a grail quest for their ideal version of D&D. Am I alone in gaming w/people who'd happily play several editions of the game, and who maintain an interest in the game's current/continued development?

I never quite understood the idea that preferring something meant excluding everything else.

Maybe I've just been lucky, but I've never seen an argument over which game to play. IME, players play whatever the GM wants to run, because the GM is offering to do something that nobody else wants to do.

In my own group I'm one of two "default GMs". So my preferences play an important (not necessarily determinative, but important) role in deciding what is played.

And because (i) we like long campaigns, and (ii) we play every 2 to 3 weeks on a Sunday afternoon, once a system has been chosen that decision is likely to be binding for some time. (The 4e game is in its 4th year - now 17th level - and probably has another 2 or so to go.)

So in that context, even though in principle I'd be happy to play around with other systems, it's not going to happen in any serious way.

As to having fun with any edition, yeah, I can have fun playing anything with the right friends. But all games and editions are not created equal. Say that each one caters to a different play style, or say that some are just better than others. Whatever. I have a definite favorite, because rules do matter...at least somewhat.

This fits my outlook and experience too.

 

[Campbell]

And this was excellent! I can't XP it, but it really captures my view as well. (Although I'll add - in my case choices represent not just value but also weakness - I have quite a few 3E books, for example, for someone who never played the system, some because there was stuff I wanted to incorporate into games I was running, but some acquired just out of idle curiosity.)

I'd argue that those choices revealed your preferences at the time of purchase. Your valuation might have changed and satisfying your curiosity at the time of purchase might have been worth the $30 or so to you at the time of purchase. Of course I operate from a slightly skewed perspective - I'm studying business with a minor in economics so I tend to view things from an economic perspective.

That perspective is also why I have issues with the "split fanbase" argument. If the fanbase did not want to be split it would not have been. If everyone who currently plays 4e were perfectly happy playing 3e they would not gain utility from 4e. I could see where some people might have an issue if a substitute good for 3e (Pathfinder) was not quickly introduced, but since it was I tend to see the split fanbase as a net win for consumers. After all, if a player was not likely to enjoy the sort of 4e games I prefer they are just as unlikely to enjoy my twisted 3e games. By splitting the fanbase it is actually more likely that they will be able to quickly discern between groups with compatible tastes. It might not have been the best business decision for WotC, but as a consumer the interests of suppliers are not really my concern. It's also in their interest for me to pay $1000 for a player's handbook, but I'm not likely to do so anytime soon.

I'd also like to add that I have seen this same basic argument occur every time that competition for D&D rears its ugly head. I was not convinced when it was Vampire, Magic, or World of Warcraft. If consumers would rather play X then Y then X has more value to them.

 

[pemerton]

The most prevailant criticism of 4e that I hear is that it 'isn't D&D'. Technically, it's not true as the label says otherwise, but it does reflect the view of people who have played the game and genuinely feel that way. People who find the game dominated by tactical maneuvers and miniatures are also just expressing their feelings when they say 'that's not a RPG'. In these contexts these views are not personal insults - they are expressions about a game.

If 4E is not an RPG, then people who play it are not part of the roleplaying community, because they're not playing an RPG. "You are not one of us" is the result, and "you don't know what an RPG is". People have to consider the implications of what they're saying.

Fifth Element is spot-on here. I'm a bit sick of being told - if not expressly, then by implication - that I'm not part of the D&D community or the RPGing community.

I started roleplaying with B/X D&D in 1982. With 4e I'm doing the same sort of thing (but better, I hope) as I was trying to do back then. I therefore think I've got the same sort of claim to community membership as anyone else posting on these boards.

This has to be asserted. 4e has been divisive for the D&D community - fact. Note, I am not making any value judgements about the game itself in that statement, nor am I looking to pick sides.

Well, this is again going back to the flawed notion that 4e was released with the idea of only appealing to half it's own market. This is patently nonsense - they either released 4e with the intent of appealing to all potential D&D fans or it was the most idiotic marketing decision of all time - but it simply hasn't worked.

<snip>

The fact still remains, as you have pointed out, that the community was still rallying around a single game and brand - until 4e came out.

If this is how you define the "D&D community", then you're defining me out of it. Because from 1990 to 2008 I was buying D&D materials from time to time (either new or second hand), but wasn't using them to run D&D. I was running Rolemaster because there were features of AD&D that I didn't like, and 3E did nothing to address them. 4e brought me back to D&D. So from my point of view, 4e didn't divide my community. It helped reconstitute it.

On the other hand, if you define the community as "people playing and running traditional D&D-ish fantasy RPGs" then I was always part of that community, and 4e hasn't changed that one bit.

I find it galling that anybody could seriously argue that all the issues we have been quite angrily debating about for years on this site and elsewhere have not, in fact, stemmed from the release of 4e.

To claim that the division in the community is the communities fault, is basically airbrushing out the core issue.

<snip>

Pathfinder may not be going anywhere, but it's own existence is solely down to the development of 4e in the first instance.

at least half of D&D sales are actually Pathfinder sales these days - in the wake of 4e. This fact has never occurred before the release of 4e.

It seems to me that you are ignoring the most important accompanier of the release of 4e, namely, the existence of the d20 SRD released under an irrevocable OGL. That is what made Pathfinder possible.

From my point of view, I don't remember ever telling a PF player that s/he wasn't RPGing, although when it's relevant I haven't hestitated to explain why 3E/PF does nothing for me as an RPG. I certainly don't criticise them for "dividing" some rather ill-defined community. As far as I'm concerend, they're still part of any relevant community - those playing RPGs, those playing traditional D&D-ish fantasy RPGs, those playing (some versin of D&D) - and even in many cases they're also part of the community of 4e players.

4th Ed really has split the D&D player base like no other edition, such a shame, the previous 3 editions all had a similarity, but along comes 4th Ed, totally different game, which is fine, it's fun, but not really keeping in line (at all) with the legacy of the game of D&D.

For what it's worth, I find 4e is better at letting me do what I wanted to do with B/X than any other version of D&D (including that one).


In saying this I'm not strictly disagreeing with you. I think you are to some extent right about the similarity of 3E with earlier editions in experience delivered - although some posters with more comparative experience like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], [MENTION=48135]Fifth Element[/MENTION] and [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION] all disagree, I think - but I am focusing more on the experience promised. And I think 4e delivers on what was promised in the Foreword to Moldvay Basic better than any earlier version of D&D. The only other version of D&D that I found came close was the original Oriental Adventures (but it also had many of the features of AD&D that turned me away from that game to Rolemaster).

Mine may be a less typical viewpoint and experience, but from my point of view the base was already split in certain ways (eg I, in some senese a part of it, was GMing Rolemaster almost exclusively for nearly 20 years) and 4e reunited at least me and some of those in my group with D&D (others had already been playing 3E in other groups).

How do you define a RPG? On one level, you could argue that playing Warhammer Fantasy Battle is an RPG - you play a general in a battle, with miniatures representing the army you select. You have rules to simulate attacks, defenses and powers and there is a strong tactical input into the game. You have a clear objective. You can personalize your army in all sorts of ways.

<snip>

Yet, none of these replicate a classic D&D RPG experience. Why? - because the freeform, interpersonal aspects of gameplay elevates it from just being a tactical simulation. When people say something is 'not a rpg', the best response is not to take offense, but to actually get to the bottom of what that person means by 'RPG'. Something that has not been done all that well in recent years.

It puzzles me that you think a discussion of whether or not Warhammer Fantasy Battle is an RPG has anything to contribute in this context. Obviously it's not (as written - who knows what some people have actually done by drifting and adapting its rules!). For a start, there is no shared imaginary space - the scope of play is defined purely mechanically, without any reference to a fiction that is shared among the participants. And then there is nothing analogouse to a PC or protagonist that most if not all of the participants are "inhabiting" within that fiction, and acting the part of, or advocating for, in the course of play. And nor is there anything analogous to a GM whose job it is to define and adjudicate the situations/setting in which those PCs are located. (I recognise that there can be RPGs without a traditional GM, but they still have a shared imaginary space. I think this shared fiction, and its interaction with a shared system, is probably a minimum necessary criterion of RPGhood.)

4e, on the other hand, very obviously is an RPG - and in some respects (like its player and GM roles) quite a traditional one. It invovles a shared fiction, which is drawn upon by the participants in the process of establishing situation and setting, and then resolving what happens within that situation and setting. (Again, I'm talking about the game as written. If some people choose to use its mechanics purely for shared-fiction-free skirmish gaming, good luck to them! Back in the day plenty of people seem to have built characters to face off against the gods in DDG, but I don't think that shows that AD&D wasn't, as written, an RPG.)

The 4e fans on this forum (and possibly elsewhere) have got themselves entrenched in an attitude that is oversensitive to slights against 'their' game - to the point that progress in the development of 5e is becoming seriously compromised.

I would be curious to know in what ways the development of 5e is being compromised at all - let alone "seriously" - by the posts of 4e players on this or other forums.

I mean, if those posts, or responses to surveys etc, are taken into account by WotC in the course of developing the game, then I don't see how that is "compromising" 5e's development - isn't that what an open playtest is about?

Or do you mean that those fans are compromising the uptake of 5e as the next (and universal) edition? But that doesn't seem right either - in what way are players of 4e obliged to have any particular interest in 5e if it is not a game that speaks to their tastes and inclinations in RPGing?

In other words, it's not because 4e fans are more willing to counter arguments against their favored system, or that 4e necessarily is more universally hated by D&D fans (or grognards or whatever diminutive you wish to use) and is the only one being shot at, it's just that it's next to go by the wayside (unless WotC is to be believed and they really can somehow rein-franchise all edition stalwarts) and is just in a circular cycle of being defended, attacked and defended again.

Give it time. Grow some thick skin. Hang in there and frankly, even if I don't agree with you, fight for your edition. Just make sure it's in a meaningful way.

To some extent I feel that [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] may be right that it's already "game over" for 4e. But I'm still interested in talking about RPGs, and about my play experiences, and articulating what it is that I'm looking for in an RPG in the context of discussions about what D&Dnext might look like.

 

[pemerton]

So let's get this straight, if you ever find yourself believing that something (anything?!) is "self-evident"........so for example, I wake up one morning and self-evidently believe myself to exist....then I am either utterly inept at logic, ignorant or a delusional loon?!!

Rene Descartes must be turning in his grave!

As an aside, one chapter of my MA thesis argued that Descartes is wrong in regarding the cogito as self-evidently correct. I think it is an empirical argument that rests on an observational premise (namely, my experience of my own thoughts). In arguing this I was heavily influenced by A J Ayer's treatment of the cogito in The Problem of Knowledge.