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

[Allister]

Subdual damage - Again, I thought the auto-nature of subdual damage was because they (WOTC) realized that making it a feat a la 3E meant that it was rarely ever taken unless your concept was the pacifist character.

Better to include it as a standard part of the character rules and thus allow for it to be actually used.

 

[pawsplay]

The poster in question has claimed that the truth is best represented by his opinions on the subject.

That's a non-argument, though. Who would purposefully hold opinions that they feel are not representative of the truth?

He also suggests that his opinions, by virtue of being the truth, are objective, and not up for debate.

It's not clear to me what is being claimed, but someone is certainly welcome to claim they are speaking the truth. Whether that is "objective" of course depends on how convincing the evidence is. I would rather talk about their position than their right to claim to know the truth, which I believe is a right every person has.

 

[Thasmodious]

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'

Umm, using the word 'tank' to describe a heavily armored damage soaking melee machine has been in use as long as I've been gaming, which was the late 70s.

Also:

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

No. Not at all. It feels like a game of D&D. And that's the TRUTH.

 

[Fifth Element]

That's a non-argument, though. Who would purposefully hold opinions that they feel are not representative of the truth?

Someone who believes that some things are not subject to being true or false, but rather are only a matter of opinion? Subjective things, to put it another way.

 

[pawsplay]

Someone who believes that some things are not subject to being true or false, but rather are only a matter of opinion? Subjective things, to put it another way.

Someone who believes everything is subjective still holds an objective opinion: "Everything is subjective." It's not really possible to believe it's only subjective that everything is subjective.

 

[ExploderWizard]

First off, the "world" doesn't work differently. The game works differently.

You are right, my bad. The problem lies with the game interacting with the world.

Secondly, PCs have always been special in D&D. That's why they can take a number of blows from a giant warchief that would kill an equal number of normal men.

Special because they are the main characters and do the important things in the world yes. Special because the laws of the universe give them VIP treatment, no.

PC: " dont give me any lip guardsman Joe. I am a PC. I have healing surges!!"

Guardsman Joe: " Big deal so do I. Bring it on!"

PC: " Well I can activate mine!"

Guardsman Joe: " "

Again, the world assumes nothing. The game assumes that the PCs are heroes, yes, but you are using the wrong definition of hero. They're using hero in the classical sense, where heroes are extraordinary people, not the modern sense, where heroes are good guys. Hercules was a hero, but he was also a total douchebag.

Just like previous editions favored good tendencies over evil ones ("Chaotic Evil is the worst alignment because..."), so too does the latest edition.

We are using the same definition with regard to hero. Being unique in the world is kind of a superheroic trait. If the PC's are adventurers who get to use different rules from everyone else, how were they trained? Were they sent to the planet like Superman or did the powers manifest overnight like on the TV series Heroes?

So, a magic user being able to manipulate his magic so that he can prevent from killing a needed hostage immediately turns it into super hero comics? That has to be the weakest attempt at a justification I have seen this entire thread.

Being able to call any kind of an attack a "stun" IS superhero comics.
It was included in the 4E combat system because nothing can stand in the way of PC's unleashing the full fury of thier combat powers without being labeled as unfun.

 

[firesnakearies]

Someone who believes everything is subjective still holds an objective opinion: "Everything is subjective." It's not really possible to believe it's only subjective that everything is subjective.

What about someone who believes, possibly, that everything, or some things, might possibly be subjective, unless those things aren't subjective, but that nothing really seems to be objective as far as he can tell thus far, but any given thing just might be objective after all. But he's not sold on that idea, in any case.

In short, "We can't ever know or prove anything. Unless we can. But even then, we could still be wrong. Unless we couldn't. But how would we know?"

 

[Raven Crowking]

What about someone who believes, possibly, that everything, or some things, might possibly be subjective, unless those things aren't subjective, but that nothing really seems to be objective as far as he can tell thus far, but any given thing just might be objective after all. But he's not sold on that idea, in any case.

In short, "We can't ever know or prove anything. Unless we can. But even then, we could still be wrong. Unless we couldn't. But how would we know?"

There is nothing dichotomous about a belief that objective truth exists, but that said objective truth is not objectively knowable. This happens to be the position that I believe in.


RC

 

[firesnakearies]

There is nothing dichotomous about a belief that objective truth exists, but that said objective truth is not objectively knowable. This happens to be the position that I believe in.


RC

Ah, but what about the belief that objective reality doesn't exist, but that knowing even that, objectively, isn't possible?

Speaking for my own subjective view of reality, all reality is subjective, therefore there really isn't any reality at all. But since that's my subjective idea, it could very well not be real, which means that objective reality could exist, and I just don't see it. But I don't think so.

 

[cwhs01]

Ah, but what about the belief that objective reality doesn't exist, but that knowing even that, objectively, isn't possible?

Speaking for my own subjective view of reality, all reality is subjective, therefore there really isn't any reality at all. But since that's my subjective idea, it could very well not be real, which means that objective reality could exist, and I just don't see it. But I don't think so.

This is the kind of conversation which happens only when i'm not drunk, but it seems i should be