4E being immune to criticism (forked from Sentimentality And D&D...)

[Fifth Element]

What kind of opinion would it be if he called it falsehood? I think there is room enough for many truths, and for people to persuade on behalf of the one they trust.

An opinion, by definition, can be neither true nor false. It can be uninformed or well-informed, but given there is no objective definition of what a "supers game" is, claiming that your interpretation of that term is the only true interpretation is presumptuous.

Here we go with the definitions:

truth

1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth. 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement. 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
What "fact" does the claim that "4E is a supers game" conform to?

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't think supers is something you are going to be be able to establish by the presence or absence of some specific elements. It's an overall tone and style. Pointing out that a game does nor does not have a specific element and therefore is/isn't supers is a classic strawman argument.

But then, to argue 4E is a supers game, you need to argue that the mechanics and implied setting force a certain tone and style into everyone's game.

Now, I haven't yet played 4E, so I'll ask those that have: does your 4E game feel like a supers game?

The more vague you can make your definitions (it's about how it feels, not what it is), the more meaningless these definitions are. Terms like "tone" and "style" are subjective. No truth can be derived from them.

 

[Fifth Element]

May I point out that any supers game is, almost by definition, also a fantasy game? And that one could make the argument that the reverse is also true?

Indeed. The dividing line between the genres is blurry to say the least.

 

[pawsplay]

To me truth=fact.

Well, that's where you and a large body of philosophic tradition diverge. If truth were just facts, it would just be called facts. Truth is an interpretation of facts.

Opinion is simply my best guess at the facts.

No, that is a theory. An opinion is a belief not only about what is likely true, but also what will be true in the future. Further, opinions are usually considered to be beliefs that impel one to action, rather than simply fancies or meaningless assertions.

An opinion would be: It is a bad idea to drink Drano. That's not a guess about the facts, although certain facts are important (Drano can kill you, some people will be sad if you die, the experience is likely to be unpleasant). That opinion presupposes certain values, but it's going to be accessible to most other people, even those with rather different values. As an opinion, it is intellible and based on premises that are likely shared by others.

Truth is, in the end, a matter of interpretation. It is "true" the world is a dangerous and mysterious place where we are the mercy of the fates and few things have clear and unambiguous value, but it is also "true" it is a wonderful and miraculous place and existence is itself a blessing. It really depends.

Thus, it can be true that The Godfather Part III is a fitting cap to the movie trilogy, while also being true, to someone else, that it was an unnecessary appendix with artistic problems.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think supers is something you are going to be be able to establish by the presence or absence of some specific elements. It's an overall tone and style. Pointing out that a game does nor does not have a specific element and therefore is/isn't supers is a classic strawman argument.

See, now this I agree with.

Can you play 4e as a "Fantasy Super Heroes Game"? Quite probably. Then again, you could play pretty much any version of D&D as fantasy super heroes. It all comes down to your campaign.

Or, better yet, it all comes down to the tone the DM wants to set.

Heck, there's a pretty decent thread right here claiming that you could mold 4e into a pretty decent Tolkein RPG. If that's true, then 4e doesn't necessarily have to be a fantasy supers game.

 

[pawsplay]

But then, to argue 4E is a supers game, you need to argue that the mechanics and implied setting force a certain tone and style into everyone's game.

Why? Where is that rule written?

Terms like "tone" and "style" are subjective. No truth can be derived from them.

I'll agree that they are subjective while disagreeing with the second thing. Those are not simply "feelings," those are terms used in literary critique. If subjectively meant something lacked truth, you can begin forgetting about a lot of things, including the law of gravity, which after all is just an incomplete intepretation of nature from the standpoint of human beings. Our understanding of gravity has been altereted in the past and will be again in the future; is there no truth in gravity?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I do find it perhaps unfortunate that WOTC choose to use terms that are fairly close to MMORPGs...but I guess I'm glad they didn't call any class the 'Tank'...which IS from City of Heroes. Whether they did it because they are recognizing influences from MMORPGs or not, can't really say, but it does feed the speculation.

I was using Tank to refer to my 1e fighter long before they even invented MMORPGs, so perhaps the direction of causality is running in the other direction. I don't suppose it's unlikely that D&D has itself influenced the language of gaming in general, being the original avatar-based combat game.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

What Glyfair changed was the thread title. Mea culpa.

Well, that settles that. Good job figuring that out, however you did it.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well, that's where you and a large body of philosophic tradition diverge. If truth were just facts, it would just be called facts. Truth is an interpretation of facts.



No, that is a theory. An opinion is a belief not only about what is likely true, but also what will be true in the future. Further, opinions are usually considered to be beliefs that impel one to action, rather than simply fancies or meaningless assertions.

An opinion would be: It is a bad idea to drink Drano. That's not a guess about the facts, although certain facts are important (Drano can kill you, some people will be sad if you die, the experience is likely to be unpleasant). That opinion presupposes certain values, but it's going to be accessible to most other people, even those with rather different values. As an opinion, it is intellible and based on premises that are likely shared by others.

Truth is, in the end, a matter of interpretation. It is "true" the world is a dangerous and mysterious place where we are the mercy of the fates and few things have clear and unambiguous value, but it is also "true" it is a wonderful and miraculous place and existence is itself a blessing. It really depends.

Thus, it can be true that The Godfather Part III is a fitting cap to the movie trilogy, while also being true, to someone else, that it was an unnecessary appendix with artistic problems.

Aren't you then arguing that truth is simply opinion? That's not something that most people want to agree with. To be truth, it must square with something objective, or at least transcendental. "A true belief" differs from "a belief" by its reference to some actual state of affairs, usually one that can be verified. You can say that it's true that someone believes something, but it's much more difficult to argue that something is true because someone believes it.

In any case, the notion that we must accept ExploderWizard's assertion that his opinions are truth because he says they are is laughable. He believes they are true, and we disagree. At this impasse, he--making the positive claim--must offer argument to convince us, or else we have no obligation to give his opinions any consideration.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So we can see your definition narrowing. A "supers game" is one in which all characters have superpowers.

But how about moving on. Is a 20th-level AD&D fighter still a mundane soldier? 3rd-level 4E fighters are still pretty mundane really

A 20th level AD&D fighter has nothing more than great fighting skill (extra attacks) incredible luck and magical protections (hp) that allow him to outlast many normal men in a fight.

What's the difference between magic and psionics, other than the flavour?

Of course its flavor.
Spells are studied and learned by wizards or granted by divine power for clerics. You can take an effect and apply it different ways. An effect that a character can simply do is a power which is not the same as a spell.

Looks like you're backtracking. High-level 3E "starts looking kind of supers like", whereas 4E, which presumably you equate closely with high-level 3E in terms of how the characters all have superpowers, is "a supers game".

With regard to non-magic using classes yes.