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

[Raven Crowking]

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

I looked at the posts, and spot-read through the thread. Then I shut my InterWeb "mouth" for a second and thought.

(1) Glyfair had just looked at Noonan's blog.

(2) He had just added Noonan's new comments in a new post.

(3) The thread title changed to reflect the new comments.

(4) You need to edit the OP to change the thread title.

(5) Ergo, Glyfair changed the thread title, and I am incorrect.


RC


EDIT: I don't mind admitting that I am wrong when I see that it is clearly the case that I am wrong.

(Of course, that doesn't mean I'm right just because I don't see that it is clearly the case that I am wrong! )

 

[Fifth Element]

Why? Where is that rule written?

It's not written anywhere, it's derived from your earlier post. You said that you cannot say something is a supers game based on specific elements, just on tone and style.

Going from there, in order for 4E specifically to be called a supers game, its tone and style must necessarily be superheroic. It wouldn't be enough that some people play 4E like a supers game. Because any edition of D&D can be played that way. Saying a game "can be played like a supers game" is something very different than saying the game "is a supers game".

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.

True. But we're not critiquing literature. We're discussing a game.

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?

Now you're comparing something with observable physical effects to how different people play a game. That's not valid.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Now you're comparing something with observable physical effects to how different people play a game. That's not valid.

How different people play a game doesn't have observable physical effects? How interesting.

Style and tone are certainly observable. The guy or gal who read your freshmen essays wasn't marking a potential paper or an intuitive problem with your grammar. The paper was there in a physical sense, with physical writing on it, and you were missing proper citation.

That said, I agree with you that to be playing a Supers game you need to adopt the whole style of the genre. You don't need to embody it anymore than a freshmen paper needs to get academic style right in order to be academic, but it needs to adopt the tropes as its own.

Otherwise there is no difference between an American superhero comic and a Hong Kong Kung Fu comic when there are, in fact, clear and observable differences of type as well as specifics.

The two may be close enough that they can inform each other particularly as they are cultural phenomena encoded onto physical phenomena, but they subjective interpretation can also demonstrate their objective differences.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Magical protection and incredible (and I add: reliable) luck? That's not a superpower? Okay, under this constraint, you might be right. Or maybe not, after all, then martial powers could just be magic like anything else...

 

[billd91]

Now you're comparing something with observable physical effects to how different people play a game. That's not valid.

Don't confuse a greater degree of variation in observable effects with lack of observable effects in general. How the rules (with "super" powers for characters) affect play, including tone, is part of a complex system. But that doesn't mean they don't have an observable effect in the end result.

 

[Fifth Element]

How different people play a game doesn't have observable physical effects? How interesting.

Given a set of circumstances, gravity works in a particular way. You drop something, it falls to the ground.

Given the same game, different groups of people play it quite differently. Even the same group of people play the same game in a different way sometimes.

So no, it's not comparable to gravity. Gravity doesn't behave differently based on the moods and attitudes of its users.

 

[Fifth Element]

Don't confuse a greater degree of variation in observable effects with lack of observable effects in general. How the rules (with "super" powers for characters) affect play, including tone, is part of a complex system. But that doesn't mean they don't have an observable effect in the end result.

Sorry, I should have written "predictable" effects. That's much closer to what I mean.

 

[billd91]

Sorry, I should have written "predictable" effects. That's much closer to what I mean.

But the more additional factors you know, the more you can predict. It's like the weather rather than gravity. Still predictable, but you have to know and account for a lot more...

 

[Halivar]

All of my fighter's exploits have to do with swinging a sword or bashing with a shield. I didn't see any superpowers.

Of course, I must nevertheless agree that 4E is a superpowers game: it has magic.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I didn't intend to be aggressive in any way. The truth isn't an aggressive animal. It is what it is.

However matter of factly claiming to be the sole arbiter of truth and that huge groups of people are wrong in their fundamental assumptions about the game is a bit aggressive. It's one of the reason a lot of people get upset with the apple/orange issues as well. "4e is not D&D, and that's the truth".

The casual "not that there is anything wrong with that" added to the "you are doing it wrong" doesn't help.