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

[Herschel]

...I guess the easiest way to beat a castle would be to declare it an enemy and stand within 15' of a corner, then use CAGI to draw the walls off its foundation and collapse the castle!

There's a living tower in "House of Strahd".

Just sayin'.....

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The title of this thread amuses me, especially pertaining to how every conversation regarding 4e seems to inevitably slide (Hah hah!) into "Your problem isn't a problem; 4e has no flaws."

Case in point.

Just a nugget of food for thought, 4e wouldn't have come to be if people didn't have complaints just like this about 3e. What would've happened if those complainers simply stopped complaining when they were told 3e had no flaws?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Aside from 4E being named D&D, a name it shared with 3E, I think the lack of support for simulationism and high-maintenance immersionism is crystal clear. I'm pretty sure the books tell you in plain english that the game doesn't sweat the small details, and you shouldn't either. The previews and development blurbs leading up to 4E certainly did.

Some people act like they read 4E and are surprised that simulationism and minute details and consistency are gone.

 

[Mallus]

I never said their design was careless or cluelss (please don't put words in my mouth.)

"instead they believed that the game part of D&D was the most important and instead of narrative control, just made game elements they believed were fun without consideration for narrative or simulation" -- you.

I was paraphrasing (but I didn't mean to misrepresent what you wrote).

What I'm questioning is if those goals and designs are being misrepresented by fans...

What I'm questioning is when people seem to be deliberately problematizing what look to me like clear design goals/choices.

...but I'm also not blindly making up stuff or intepreting things without some proof to defend 4e against all criticism.

I don't think 4e is proof against all criticism. Hell, my group isn't close to done formulating our critique of the system. But I do like to chip in when people make a big fuss over problems that, from my POV, they're basically inventing (like quantum wounding... sheesh).

I want a better game next time...

And on this we can agree!

 

[Scribble]

Just a nugget of food for thought, 4e wouldn't have come to be if people didn't have complaints just like this about 3e. What would've happened if those complainers simply stopped complaining when they were told 3e had no flaws?

Sure... when it's a problem with things like the system math (when people pointed out that skil chalenge DCs were bad) constructive criticism is great...

For things like how people notice the game plays out throughout the course of a number of years, constructive criticsm is great...

But complaining about a system being broken because of what amounts to how you narrate something (half the time before you've even used it in the first place...) seems kind of weird to me.

 

[Imaro]

"instead they believed that the game part of D&D was the most important and instead of narrative control, just made game elements they believed were fun without consideration for narrative or simulation" -- you.

I was paraphrasing (but I didn't mean to misrepresent what you wrote).

Okay, how am I saying their design was bad in any way when 99.9% (yes this is exaggeration) of people who love 4e have already said simulation was given small, if any, consideration. What I'm saying is that heavy doses of narrative control and simulation probably were not a concern for them in designing and developing 4e.

"What I'm questioning is when people seem to be deliberately problematizing what look to me like clear design goals/choices.

Well is it gamist or narrative driven?... personally I think it's purely gamist, and I can accept it as such in the same way I can accept the Cadwallon rpg... but I also feel that many fans are pounding the red circle of gamism into the square peg of narrative based gaming... and was wondering if the designers had commented on this or if there was anything explicit concerning it in the books...sorry this got to you so badly.

 

[Andor]

Correct. It's clear from a reading of the rules.

Anything that can move can slide. And many powers push, pull and slide more than 1 square. CAGI is one of them.

Yes, because the rules of forced movement apply to anything that can move. If a human is slowed to a move of 2, it can still be pushed 5 by a warlord power.

Actually I don't see anything in forced movement that requires the target be mobile. All it says is "Forced Movement doesn't count against a target's ability to move on it's turn. A target's speed is irrelevant to the distance you move it." So a speed of 0 or '-' should still be subject to such powers. It's also clearly stated that you can force move someone off a cliff.

If this was a wizard or swordmage power this discussion would never have happened. There would be no doubt that an invisible, silenced wizard could slide a purple fungus. It's only the narrative disconnect that follows from having such a power come from a supposedly mundane source that causes a problem.

*shrug*

If you have no problem with a cleric of a good god vampireing hp from foes and loaning them to friends, good for you.

If you can imagine a fighter knowing an insult so vile it will force a golem to disobey it's programming and attack the fighter instead of the mage it was ordered to kill, also good for you.

If you can imagine both those things yet not imagine where someone else might perceive the disconnect between the gamist and narrativist elements in the design of those powers... I dunno.

 

[Scribble]

Well is it gamist or narrative driven?... personally I think it's purely gamist, and I can accept it as such in the same way I can accept the Cadwallon rpg... but I also feel that many fans are pounding the red circle of gamism into the square peg of narrative based gaming... and was wondering if the designers had commented on this or if there was anything explicit concerning it in the books...sorry this got to you so badly.

One of the reasons why I dislike the whole narrativist gamist simmulationist thing... Or at least feel "Narrativist" shouldn't be on the compass like that... Narrative seems like it has ultimate power so to speak... You can achieve the same narrative with either gamist or simmulationist elements.It's layered on top of either "style." It doesn't control anything, it's achieved through use of the other two.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

One of the reasons why I dislike the whole narrativist gamist simmulationist thing... Or at least feel "Narrativist" shouldn't be on the compass like that... Narrative seems like it has ultimate power so to speak... You can achieve the same narrative with either gamist or simmulationist elements.It's layered on top of either "style." It doesn't control anything, it's achieved through use of the other two.

The three aren't exactly equal, or independant for that matter, particularly narrativism. Gamism and simulationism don't inherently interfere with narrativism, but generally interfere with each other to a great degree. Simulationism gets murky when it comes to narrativism. Some people find the clunkiness and slowdown of simulationism to interfere with narrative play by ruining the pace of the game. Others can't immerse themselves into the narrative without moderate to heavy simulationism.

 

[Jack99]

Just a nugget of food for thought, 4e wouldn't have come to be if people didn't have complaints just like this about 3e. What would've happened if those complainers simply stopped complaining when they were told 3e had no flaws?

Maybe the flaws of 3.x were so big that even the designers working at WotC could see them?

Or maybe 4e came because an edition can only make so much money before the well dries up and the books released become niche products that do not generate enough revenue to sustain a company of WotC's size?