Why I really like D&D.

[Steely_Dan]

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.

Not sure what you mean by comparative experience in this case, I have played D&D since 1986 (and have played every edition/version extensively).

 

[pemerton]

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.

Yes. My real quibble is probably with the equation of "preference" and "value".

Although I also don't accept that choices always fully reveal preferences, because this is not true of choices made out of weakness of will - in those cases, the preference that motivates the choice is (by definition, given we're talking about weakness of will) one by which the chooser would prefer not to be motivated. Hence the rationality of people submitting to coercion in some circumstances - eg a smoker who wants to quit smoking might take advantage of no-smoking spaces to do so.

Whether equating "preference" and "value" matters or not, and whether choices made out fo weakness of will (and hence the consistency at least sometimes of coercion with preference-satisfaction) matter or not, will depend on what one takes to be the prevalence of weakness of will, and what one takes to be the nature and significance of value. I have views on both, but I think board rules prevent me from stating them very fully! (That said, I'm not hostile to economic analysis per se, and find social choice methodology quite useful, and use it from time to time - in what would be a very simplistic fashion from the point of view of a real economist - in my work.)

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.

This all makes sense to me, and seems right. (And relating this back to your earlier post, as well as to my first paragraph in this post, the expenditure of what are ultimately fairly modest sums of money on a luxury entertainment product is not where I think the action lies for some of my deeper issues with revealed-preference theory!)

 

[pemerton]

Not sure what you mean by comparative experience in this case

I meant more experience than mine in comparing 3E to what came before. Which means that, even though I'm inclined to agree with you about the comparative difference of 3E to earlier compared to 4e to earlier, I'm not going to state I'm 100% certain when I know there are other sensible people out there who have more experience of it than me and who don't agree with you.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I meant more experience than mine in comparing 3E to what came before. Which means that, even though I'm inclined to agree with you about the comparative difference of 3E to earlier compared to 4e to earlier, I'm not going to state I'm 100% certain when I know there are other sensible people out there who have more experience of it than me and who don't agree with you.

Ah, yes, I got it, and as others have pointed out, even 3rd Ed, especially a little while after 3.5 was released, lost something for many (the game could get unwieldy with all the builds, and number bloat etc), and the retro-backlash started (2005?).

1st and 2nd Ed are obviously very similar, you can easily use a class or monster from one in the other, even with 3rd Ed you can to a point.

 

[Campbell]

I meant more experience than mine in comparing 3E to what came before. Which means that, even though I'm inclined to agree with you about the comparative difference of 3E to earlier compared to 4e to earlier, I'm not going to state I'm 100% certain when I know there are other sensible people out there who have more experience of it than me and who don't agree with you.

I'd argue that the embrace of process simulation oriented mechanics inspired from the like of early RuneQuest and Rolemaster have a significant impact on play. Of course if you were already playing AD&D with a process simulation perspective (encouraged by 2e's text if not its rules) it might not be readily apparent. As someone who was up until recently playing in a 2e game* and has a preference for AD&D over 3e I believe the actual results of play are even far more different, particularly when one looks at the efficacy of fighters, thieves/rogues, and spell casters in play.

*I'm moving downtown and selling my car.

 

[TrippyHippy]

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.

Well, I haven't. So stop extrapolating on what has not been said.

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.

Aside from this being a rather individual anecdote, I hadn't actually provided any definition of 'Community' in the statement you were responding to. If you still played, or at least participated in the D&D fan base, then I'd regard you as part of the community. There is nobody on these forums that I'd not consider part of the community. Straw man argument.

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.

No. If the d20SRD made it possible for the Pathfinder phenomena to exist, then why didn't it happen before? The Pathfinder RPG only came into existence because Paizo couldn't support it's own d20 business interests, following on from the release of 4e. The OGL contractual issues were massively delayed and problematic, and the whole 4e marketing strategy, significantly more exclusive than before, was already dividing the community. There had been several alternative 'Player's Handbooks' released in the wake of 3.5 edition - none came close to threatening the D&D marketshare in the manner that Pathfinder has done since. The key factor was 4e.

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.)

Should I now take offense that you don't think it's a RPG?

There is plenty of imaginary space around a Warhammer battle field. You don't actually think those static little models are real do you? The entire battle being simulated is imagining kinetics and vibrancy. Regiments are personalized, individual models are named. There are variations and choices being made all over the place, and a shared fiction clearly exemplified by the multitude of War hammer novels. Warhammer has 'living campaigns' too (with meta-narratives and everything), and some gamers do utilize GMs in their running of battles. In fact, when Warhammer 40K Rogue Trader came out in 1987 it was so similar in it's design to a rpg, many people assumed it was a rpg and could be run as such.

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.

It's compromised every time a gamer has to curtail their criticism of a game for fear of creating offense to a vocally partisan community - or worse, being banned for 'warring'. It's compromised when people cannot except the validity of the goal of a 'unified' edition or the need for a change in approach in the first instance. People aren't obliged to have to buy into any game, but I am guessing that people on this forum actually have an interest in making 5e a success. I'm saying let's make this forum more productive and positive, and less bogged down by seeing personal slights where there are none.

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.

My Dad (now deceased sadly) actually studied under Ayer, and later lectured philosophy at Oxford. I'm a physics teacher myself, who owns a pet parrot. It all went downhill for the family....

 

[Neonchameleon]

[MENTION=27252]TrippyHippy[/MENTION], if you want to know about the Edition Wars rather than merely encouraging them, try reading this thread. And in my experience the fire mostly comes from fans of the older edition or version (looking at the internal Essentials war) - those on the newer side are generally happy with what they have and would live and let live. Until attacked.

And no, this isn't an assertion of moral superiority. I'm fully expecting a segment of 4e fans to become anti-5e edition warriors.

Well, you haven't but what i was saying before is that this thread is not about discussing the merits or not of 4e on any technical level. I'll happily discuss them on another thread if you wish. I just don't want this thread to be side railed.

Given quite how badly off the lampoon was (seriously, it bears more resemblance to 2e (XP for every action you take in line with your class) and 3e (Fighters Don't Get Nice Stuff) than 4e) I really can't be bothered to open a new thread to give you another chance to edition war.

Curiously, I think the only thing that is being demonstrated here is people taking criticisms of a game as being personal attacks. See my previous post, and read it again.

"You don't know what an RPG is and you are playing something that isn't an RPG but you are calling it one" is a personal attack.

Well, that's an issue of you personalizing a criticism of a game as being a slight against yourself again, isn't it? You need a thicker skin, because the bottom line is this is what people think about the game.

And they are wrong. Factually and objectively wrong.

Well, there's the denial right there. Other edition 'wars' have never reached anything to the degree that we have seen in the last few years since 4e came out - and the sales provide tangible evidence of a real split beyond the internet fora.

OK. I've challenged you on this before.

Show me where on either side of the 3.X/4e edition war there is anything remotely close to the RPGPundit, as a sufficiently respected member of the Old School community to be a consultant for WotC suggesting that Monte Cook's vocal cords should be cut. Show me the Godwin's Law violations.

Because until you can do so you are just blowing smoke and repeating rebutted assertions.

As for Paizo, it was pretty much a perfect storm. There's been no other company in the position Paizo was.

I am not worried about aggression - I am laughing at it.

You are stirring the pot and encouraging it.

No. If the d20SRD made it possible for the Pathfinder phenomena to exist, then why didn't it happen before? The Pathfinder RPG only came into existence because Paizo couldn't support it's own d20 business interests, following on from the release of 4e.

Because no one else owned Dragon magazine and WotC marketing should be shot.

Should I now take offense that you don't think it's a RPG?

Given it's neither sold as an RPG nor played as an RPG, you can if you like. But the cases aren't equivalent. An equivalent would be for me to call Warhammer not a tabletop wargame.

In fact, when Warhammer 40K Rogue Trader came out in 1987 it was so similar in it's design to a rpg, many people assumed it was a rpg and could be run as such.

And they were right. Rogue Trader design was weird.

I'm saying let's make this forum more productive and positive, and less bogged down by seeing personal slights where there are none.

How about starting by making this forum more productive and positive by not giving personal slights. Of which "Not an RPG" is one. Whether or not people are intending to give personal slights, claiming that 4e is not an RPG is one. It is casting aspersions on everyone who plays 4e as an RPG - claiming that they are not roleplayers.

And while you are at it, you personally can also make the forum more productive and positive by not lampooning any systems. And if you absolutely feel the need to lampoon othe systems, you can at least start by getting the flaws in other systems right.

 

[TrippyHippy]

[MENTION=27252]TrippyHippy[/MENTION], if you want to know about the Edition Wars rather than merely encouraging them, try reading this thread. And in my experience the fire mostly comes from fans of the older edition or version (looking at the internal Essentials war) - those on the newer side are generally happy with what they have and would live and let live. Until attacked.

And no, this isn't an assertion of moral superiority.

Yes it is. It's akin to a little boy going to the teacher saying 'he started it!'

Given quite how badly off the lampoon was (seriously, it bears more resemblance to 2e (XP for every action you take in line with your class) and 3e (Fighters Don't Get Nice Stuff) than 4e) I really can't be bothered to open a new thread to give you another chance to edition war.

I found it funny, and I'm afraid you'll have to start a new thread as I don't want this thread being curtailed by your warring.

"You don't know what an RPG is and you are playing something that isn't an RPG but you are calling it one" is a personal attack.

You are putting words into my mouth that I haven't said - or even emoted - and extrapolating on a view - 'this isn't a rpg' - to make it into a personal attack.

And they are wrong. Factually and objectively wrong.

They are factually and objectively wrong about how they themselves feel about a game? Riiight...

Show me where on either side of the 3.X/4e edition war there is anything remotely close to the RPGPundit, as a sufficiently respected member of the Old School community to be a consultant for WotC suggesting that Monte Cook's vocal cords should be cut. Show me the Godwin's Law violations.

Because until you can do so you are just blowing smoke and repeating rebutted assertions.

That is a badly misguided attempt at emoting the issues raised here. The D&D community has been split since the release of 4e, quite evidently by actual sales and obvious long term antagonism (which you apparently can't let go of). Wizards themselves have acknowledged this even if you can't.

And I am not going to honor that line of questioning with anything other than referring you to those facts again.

As for Paizo, it was pretty much a perfect storm. There's been no other company in the position Paizo was.

Paizo was in that position before and after. Pathfinder was only released after 4e. The key factor was 4e.

You are stirring the pot and encouraging it.

And apparently you are gloriously rising to the occasion....

How about starting by making this forum more productive and positive by not giving personal slights. Of which "Not an RPG" is one. Whether or not people are intending to give personal slights, claiming that 4e is not an RPG is one. It is casting aspersions on everyone who plays 4e as an RPG - claiming that they are not roleplayers.

>sigh<
'Not an RPG' is not a personal attack, because it is not an attack on a person. It's an attack on a game. And lest you'd actually be bothered enough to read my posts - that is not a quote attributed to me. I haven't ever argued that.

And while you are at it, you personally can also make the forum more productive and positive by not lampooning any systems. And if you absolutely feel the need to lampoon othe systems, you can at least start by getting the flaws in other systems right.

I'll lampoon any game I want if I think it's funny. If you can't handle it, that's your problem.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

How about starting by making this forum more productive and positive by not giving personal slights. Of which "Not an RPG" is one. Whether or not people are intending to give personal slights, claiming that 4e is not an RPG is one. It is casting aspersions on everyone who plays 4e as an RPG - claiming that they are not roleplayers.

I'm saying let's make this forum more productive and positive, and less bogged down by seeing personal slights where there are none.

Hey, how about if we can't respect or show courtesy to our fellow-posters' ideas, we reconsider posting.

For the record, it is always rude to tell people what they must be thinking. This goes for those who criticize a given game and presume that those who play it must be somehow lying to themselves, and it also goes for those who those who hear a criticism of something they love and presume it's some sort of personal slight. Neither position is respectful or courteous of the fact that other people have valid opinions on the thing.

If we can't engage in this conversation without attempting to be internet mind-readers and presuming we know each others' secret motives, the thread goes KLUNK.

 

[billd91]

[MENTION=27252]TrippyHippy[/MENTION], if you want to know about the Edition Wars rather than merely encouraging them, try reading this thread. And in my experience the fire mostly comes from fans of the older edition or version (looking at the internal Essentials war) - those on the newer side are generally happy with what they have and would live and let live. Until attacked.

I really don't think that's the case around here. There are a few die hard edition warriors on the 4e side who have started fights or escalated them. But ultimately, it's the individual poster's responsibility to behave appropriately around here, regardless of perceived provocation.