Taking a Break

[Crothian]

A DM cannot equal the effort of a programming design team (or if he can, he's an incredibly rare bird), nor can he recall all that information and process it in the way a computer can. It's just the way it is.

If a DM is getting paid like a programmer and this is his job so he has 60 hours a week to spend on it he can. Now you are comparing one's trained profession to another person's hobby; hardly a fair comparison. You are allowing for a team of designers who do it for a living a lot more freedom then the single poor DM.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

How's this for a timely and absolutely textbook example of what I'm talking about:

From This thread

You know, this very handily proves exactly what I and several others have been saying. You linked a post that gives a detailed example of why he dislikes the new system and why he says it's videogamey, but you linked it to show "They shouldn't be allowed to say that."

Is it any wonder that so many people who dislike 4e are growing more and more embittered to find that any argument against 4e or any claim that they may have found something wrong ends with them being attacked and called out to be censored?

 

[LostSoul]

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.

To be fair, RC, it would have been a lot easier if, instead of saying "4e feels videogame-y", you would have said, "4e adds a barrier to immersion".

(I think that I'm getting the "videogame-y" complaint right: even though the fictional character's choices are not limited beyond what's reasonable, a player's choices are limited in the "metagame", and these limitations cause the player to feel less like he's immersing in a fictional world and more like playing a video game.)

 

[Scribble]

You linked a post that gives a detailed example of why he dislikes the new system and why he says it's videogamey...

Huh?

Personally I kind of like that since I never liked that a character was more defined by their magic items than their own abilities in the earlier editions.

I know "kind of" isn't as strong as fully commiting to liking something, but how in the world did you get dislikes from that statement?

Also did he ever qualify why he posted that link? Perhaps he was posting the type of argument that DOES add to a discussion. (One that shows WHAT he finds reminicent of a videogame) as opposed to one that simply says "It's vieogamey" and leaves it at that?

 

[Fifth Element]

If I take a Zenith DVD player and write Sony on the top, does that make it a Sony DVD player? Of course it doesn't. Likewise, if I take any game system and write D&D on the top, it obviously doesn't make it D&D. Even if I am WotC.

But if said DVD player was made by Sony, or some company that owns the Sony trademark, then it would be, by definition, a Sony DVD player.

 

[Fifth Element]

You know, this very handily proves exactly what I and several others have been saying. You linked a post that gives a detailed example of why he dislikes the new system and why he says it's videogamey, but you linked it to show "They shouldn't be allowed to say that."

It was a poor choice to link that post, because it's not a good example at all. The poster does not actually explain why he says 4E is videogamey, because he doesn't say it's videogamey. He avoids the vague, undefined, often-inflammatory term by explaining exactly what he's talking about. He compares a specific part of 4E with a specific part of a specific video game. That's not at all the same thing as saying "4E sucks, it's too videogamey."

Now, he does make the leap in logic that since 4E is similar to Diablo 2 in one respect, 4E is simply Diablo 2 in paper form. That doesn't follow, but the post does not fall into the vague, undefined term problem.

 

[Fifth Element]

Also did he ever qualify why he posted that link? Perhaps he was posting the type of argument that DOES add to a discussion. (One that shows WHAT he finds reminicent of a videogame) as opposed to one that simply says "It's vieogamey" and leaves it at that?

Good point. Hadn't thought of that.

We're jumping to conclusion as to Hussar's point in linking. Hopefully we'll get clarification.

 

[Hussar]

It was a poor choice to link that post, because it's not a good example at all. The poster does not actually explain why he says 4E is videogamey, because he doesn't say it's videogamey. He avoids the vague, undefined, often-inflammatory term by explaining exactly what he's talking about. He compares a specific part of 4E with a specific part of a specific video game. That's not at all the same thing as saying "4E sucks, it's too videogamey."

Now, he does make the leap in logic that since 4E is similar to Diablo 2 in one respect, 4E is simply Diablo 2 in paper form. That doesn't follow, but the post does not fall into the vague, undefined term problem.

You know, this very handily proves exactly what I and several others have been saying. You linked a post that gives a detailed example of why he dislikes the new system and why he says it's videogamey, but you linked it to show "They shouldn't be allowed to say that."

Is it any wonder that so many people who dislike 4e are growing more and more embittered to find that any argument against 4e or any claim that they may have found something wrong ends with them being attacked and called out to be censored?

Couple of points. Ok, maybe the example wasn't textbook perfect. But, it has all the talking points. Someone found a point of comparison between video games and D&D (take your pick of edition) and then tries to make the astounding leap that D&D=Video Game du jour.

That's the point I was talking about. Whether he likes or dislikes the point is irrelevant to what I'm talking about. It's that leap at the end.

My point exactly. Despite your protestations, no term has an objective meaning. It is part of the very nature of language that every term has only subjective meaning, based upon subjective valuations.

While you think I am taking your comment "to an absurd level of literality" you must surely be aware that there are some folks who believe that what WotC has done with the D&D name (either in 3rd, or in 4th edition, or both) corresponds exactly to the same absurdity that makes you say "Of course it wouldn't be D&D."

If I take a Zenith DVD player and write Sony on the top, does that make it a Sony DVD player? Of course it doesn't. Likewise, if I take any game system and write D&D on the top, it obviously doesn't make it D&D. Even if I am WotC.

While I personally accept that 3e and 4e are D&D, I fully understand why some others do not. They believe it is a Zenith DVD player with Sony written on the top.

Which illustrates the problem when one begins to censor on the basis of "vagueness". Any term is "vague", and the degree of "vagueness" is more often than not based not on inability to understand what is meant, but unwillingness to do so. This is not censorship to make communication clearer, but censorship to repress specific ideas that the would-be censor doesn't like.

IMHO, of course. YMMV.

Ok, now I'm being accused of censorship. Wow.

Are people really that attached to using vague language that any attempt to make your point clearly becomes censorship?

And, no one answered my question. If you use language that you know is inflamatory - be it stating that Edition X isn't D&D or whatever - REGARDLESS OF YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS ON THE ISSUE, trolling? Isn't that trolling by definition?

I have zero problems with people not liking something. Heck, I understand that. My problem is when people couch their criticisms in buzz words that have a million different definitions. "It's not D&D" is a good one. What the heck does that really mean? "It's videogamey" is another good one. Does that mean that the game runs extremely smoothly and well and rarely has any play problems? Somehow I don't think so, yet, that would be a good definition of video-gamey.

How is "Say what you mean" censorship? Isn't that the opposite of censorship? That's all I'm asking here. Say what you want to say, but don't use hot button terminology that's been beaten to death for the last eight years. All you do is Godwin the thread.

 

[Fifth Element]

Someone found a point of comparison between video games and D&D (take your pick of edition) and then tries to make the astounding leap that D&D=Video Game du jour.

Fair enough. But I believe the discussion was about using vague language, rather than unsubstantiated leaps of logic. Both are bad, but we were discussing the first. Thus the confusion.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Should I be sad or glad at the huge level of irony inherent in a raging argument like the one that this thread has become due to someone declaring an honest opinion?