Taking a Break

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Excepting that we all know there are folks on this forum who are offended by calling 4e "D&D", or 3e "D&D", or probably even 2e, or 1e. I don't think it is productive to limit discussion to what no one might find offensive.

Intent matters. Sure, we can only speculate about that, but if I feel the intent is to insult the game, its designers or its player, then it was a wrong use. Sometimes it is enough to ask "Was insulting your intent", but sometimes, it's obvious.

If you go onto a thread about "Why I don't like cake" you really shouldn't be offended about someone's discussion of finding cake too sugary, even if you know that all cakes are not sugary, and that "sugary" might not be the best term. Likewise, if you dislike cakes, you shouldn't jump into every (or any) "My cake recipe" threads to complain about how you don't like cake.

The problem is that it sometimes doesn't appear to be just a matter of taste, or is not described as such. Sure, if you think the cake is to sweet for your taste, fine. But sometimes things are constructed as if it was "absolutely" the case. And then is where I would feel the need to intervene.

Might you not also go into a thread with a title like "Whirlwind Attack + Greater Cleave + Bag of Rats - guaranteed one-round kill - 3E broken!" You know very well that no sane DM or group would allow this, but maybe an effort could be made to 'explain' this?

When Gygax wrote about why video games would never replace pnp RPGs, it was specificially this ability to simulate that he claimed was the primary difference....and I agree with him.

And he would be wrong. Video Games are very good at simulation. What do you think all those Flight Simulators from Microsoft are doing? Or Racing Games (maybe not Trackmania Sunrise, but Collin McRae's Rally games). The all excel at simulating their enviroments. And games are continually getting better at it, even simulating entire city populations and their activities, providing physic engines that allow players to interact with the game enviromnent as if it was real.

It's as humans that need short-hands to manage complexity of the stuff we want to simulate. That's not really the strength of RPGs in general - good short-hands are a strength of an individual RPG.
The strength of RPGs is the fact that humans are way more flexible then computers. If the game rules itself don't provide tools to "simulate" something, a human player or game master can make a rule up, on the fly.

If a computer game doesn't have a climb mechanic, the game character can never hope to cross a wall. If a RPG doesn't have a climb mechanic, the DM can improvise some kind of check or roll - or just handwave it.

 

[Phlebas]

to the OP (and everyone else thinking the same) - take the time off if you feel you need to recharge / refresh, but then please consider coming back as ENworld can't afford to lose its calmer voices

 

[Raven Crowking]

Utter ballocks.

Well, that was unexpected. I suppose you missed the part where I said that, when terminology was vague, defining it was important.

When I did my anime challenge last year

Please don't get me started on that. The clearest thing that came out of that thread, IMHO, was about how far people would go to first deny anime influences, and then that (when the terms of the bet had been met), how little they would keep their side of the bargain.

What we also learned was that, when judging artwork, even those who decided they were experts were not.

Shadowfax is a pokemount.

And we discussed this to death. Despite all the sturm and drang, no one could come up with an alternative to "pokemount" that meant the same thing as "pokemount". The argument, essentially, is not between "clear, unambiguous language" (which, frankly, doesn't exist) and "disengenious, vague, unclear language that obfuscates and confuses".

You cannot both say what you mean and avoid the language that means what you wish to say. That you might then jump in and argue that you don't know what "pokemount" means is besides the point. If you know what it means enough to become offended by it, the chances are really, really good that the guy claiming "clear, unambguous language" is in fact being disengenious.

It is perfectly valid to ask for a clarification of what is meant. "I don't know what you mean by videogame-y, can you clarify?" is reasonable. When the person clarifies, it no longer matters what definition you thought he was using, you now know what is meant. At that point, you can agree with what is meant, or you can disagree, but arguing instead aout the validity of the definition is nothing more or less than a disengenious, vague, attempt to obfuscate and confuse.

Hence your misunderstanding. LostSoul didn't agree with my definition of videogame-y, he agreed that under my definition 4e is more videogame-y than 3e.

That is the difference between attempting to communicate clearly, and instead attempting to attack the means of communication by calling it "meaningless".

Just as 90% of those who called 3e art "anime-y" meant "it has qualities similar to those of anime", 90% of those who call 4e (or 3e, for that matter) "videogame-y" mean "it has qualities similar to that of a videogame". And the responses by those attempting to refute that assertation make it very, very clear that these are not "vague, nearly meaningless terms". The proper follow-up question is "What qualities does X have that are similar to Y?" LostSoul asked it, got an answer, and we were able to have a conversation with very little difficulty.

Where some have trouble, I suspect, is that they don't really want a conversation. Of course, as always, I could be wrong.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

"That's gonna suck"? Is a constructive criticism?

You seem unable to discern between constructive criticism and valid criticism. Constructive criticism is, indeed, unseful when the people in question are actively asking for/listening to criticism with the intent to make changes based upon the same. If you have been told that your input will have little effect --directly or indirectly -- valid criticism is just as valid (ahem) as constructive criticism.

"Here's my version of X class. What do you think?" is a request for constructive criticism. "Here's what we're doing, regardless of what you think" is not.

I find it laughable that those who complain the loudest about being jumped on for criticizing 4e are posting things like this.

I do, too.

"X sucks", when written on the Internet, should IMHO always be read as "IMHO X sucks". It is laughable that anyone should be jumped on for having the opinion that X sucks. Especially where X is something, like a game mechanic, whose value isn't objective.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Intent matters. Sure, we can only speculate about that, but if I feel the intent is to insult the game, its designers or its player, then it was a wrong use.

If "express disapproval of" is insult, then is it wrong to express disapproval of the game? These seems a very problematic...um....problem to me.

Also, are you then agreeing that WotC's campaign of "3e bashing" prior to the release of 4e was a "wrong use"?

The problem is that it sometimes doesn't appear to be just a matter of taste, or is not described as such. Sure, if you think the cake is to sweet for your taste, fine. But sometimes things are constructed as if it was "absolutely" the case.

"X sucks", when written on the Internet, should IMHO always be read as "IMHO X sucks". Especially when X is an item whose value is not objective, such as a game or game element.

Might you not also go into a thread with a title like "Whirlwind Attack + Greater Cleave + Bag of Rats - guaranteed one-round kill - 3E broken!" You know very well that no sane DM or group would allow this, but maybe an effort could be made to 'explain' this?

Depends very much on the context of the OP, doesn't it? Does the OP think that this is a real problem, or is the OP venting? Objectively, the OP would be right in saying that the combination is a break in the rules. Subjectively, if that break in the rules is causing you problems, it might be better to ignore it. Also, subjectively, if that combination breaks the game for you, the game is broken. Of course, any sufficiently complex set of rules is going to contain problems of this nature.

And he would be wrong. Video Games are very good at simulation.

Video games are very good at simulating what the programmer(s) thought you should be doing. They are not good at simulating a vibrant world. You cannot land the Microsoft flight simulator, go into the airport, and get a coffee. If there is a "break" in the code of a racing game (such as your bag of rats example in 3e), the game cannot decide that it ruins the fun to let you exploit it.

The need for short-hands is a need related to the mathematical complexity of a game. Computers do indeed handle mathematical complexity better than humans. However, a human can roleplay without a ruleset. It you had read what I had written (or if I had written it more clearly) I don't think we'd be disagreeing. By simulation both I and Gygax (in his original article) meant the kind of open-ended simulation that you agree a computer cannot provide.

Well, short of holodeck-style AI, anyway.

The more a game builds limitations into the mundane (i.e., non-supernatural) actions a character might attempt, the more it resembles a videogame in this aspect.....and the less it plays to the greatest strength of pnp rpgs, IMHO....that if a reasonable being could/should attempt it, so can/should you.


RC

 

[rounser]

If only 4E were more videogamey. Baldurs Gate II videogamey, or Planescape: Torment videogamey. Those games rock.

 

[Rel]

It might be days before Hobo realizes that I've threadbanned him.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If "express disapproval of" is insult, then is it wrong to express disapproval of the game? These seems a very problematic...um....problem to me.

Also, are you then agreeing that WotC's campaign of "3e bashing" prior to the release of 4e was a "wrong use"?

I liked them explaining their changes and using the "short-comings" of 3E. I know only one real bashing example, and that was an article on Swarms by Mike Mearls - and sounded very much like in jest.

Video games are very good at simulating what the programmer(s) thought you should be doing. They are not good at simulating a vibrant world. You cannot land the Microsoft flight simulator, go into the airport, and get a coffee. If there is a "break" in the code of a racing game (such as your bag of rats example in 3e), the game cannot decide that it ruins the fun to let you exploit it.

The need for short-hands is a need related to the mathematical complexity of a game. Computers do indeed handle mathematical complexity better than humans. However, a human can roleplay without a ruleset. It you had read what I had written (or if I had written it more clearly) I don't think we'd be disagreeing. By simulation both I and Gygax (in his original article) meant the kind of open-ended simulation that you agree a computer cannot provide.

And that open-ended nature is not a mere feature of the rule system - every computer game could be made more complex, and if someone wanted, he could probably use the Flight Simulator to create a first-person shooter or sims-like perspective where you can land and get yourself a coffee.
You can expand rules as much as you like, in the end you will always have some limitations - and that are the limitations a DM and his players can over-come, by improvisation.
If there are no rules for parachuting in Shadowrun 3.0. I can improvise something. If there are no parachute mechanics in Grand Theft Auto, I can never do it.

Well, short of holodeck-style AI, anyway.

The more a game builds limitations into the mundane (i.e., non-supernatural) actions a character might attempt, the more it resembles a videogame in this aspect.....and the less it plays to the greatest strength of pnp rpgs, IMHO....that if a reasonable being could/should attempt it, so can/should you.

RC

I think that has no relation to the strengths of RPGs over video-games. The strength of the RPG is the attitude "Yes, you can...", that computer games so far are unable to achieve.

 

[Mark]

It might be days before Hobo realizes that I've threadbanned him.

Please, do not discuss moderator decisions in-thread.

 

[rounser]

The strength of the RPG is the attitude "Yes, you can...", that computer games so far are unable to achieve.

I challenge that.

There are computer games that present a sandbox that I'm yet to see a DM come close to - as in, you go across town or halfway around the world, and there are quests, developed NPCs and adventure there. A DM might let you go there in theory, but it's clear when you've gone beyond their notes and they're improvising. The game goes a bit grey or wacky, in a lot of cases.

Sure, the computer game might not let you jump out a window to pursue the thief and the DM might, because it's not programmed for it, but that kind of "yes, you can" is trivial when compared to the sandbox "yes, you can", IMO. Computer games have come a long way, and arguably they're doing D&D better, now, than the majority of P&P tables, in terms of sandboxing.

The social interaction is the difference, and that can't be taken away from P&P. But to suggest that CRPGs can't do a better sandbox just isn't true, IMO.