Color me confused. I say that liking or disliking a game is not a matter of rationality, but rather of preferences and you essentially ask me for a rational rationale (pun intended) as to why you should like 4E? There isn't any! As I said, rationality in terms of liking a game or not can only manifest in terms of the interaction between the preferences. As such, if your preference is to continue with your current campaign without extensive conversion, it is 'rational' for you to do so. Of course, it is only 'rational' in so far as that is your overriding preference, towering over other preferences you might have that might or might not pull you away from 3E.
Changeover Poll
- Thread starter Edena_of_Neith
- Start date
Color me confused. I say that liking or disliking a game is not a matter of rationality, but rather of preferences and you essentially ask me for a rational rationale (pun intended) as to why you should like 4E? There isn't any! As I said, rationality in terms of liking a game or not can only manifest in terms of the interaction between the preferences. As such, if your preference is to continue with your current campaign without extensive conversion, it is 'rational' for you to do so. Of course, it is only 'rational' in so far as that is your overriding preference, towering over other preferences you might have that might or might not pull you away from 3E.
D&D is perhaps not the most simulationist system, but I still want to play D&D with simulationism and not some other fantasy game - I like the D&D magic-wielding dragons, I like D&D's take on planar beings, etcetera. Besides, I think some editions are clearly more simulationist than others - the presence or absence of even more simulationist games does not change that and is irrelevant for me. Besides, there are various levels of simulationism and gamism and even if you prefer say gamism overall, going too far in that direction might not be something you enjoy. 3E is sufficiently simulationist that I can accept it (albeit I do modify it) - I would prefer more simulationism than that (up to a point of course), sure, but take too much simulationism away and I lose interest in the game.
Oh come on - we all know that the way HP, for example, is structured in 3E is not particularly simulationist, but the direction that 4E moved in is even less simulationist (even in the HP example used). There is a point beyond which I am not willing to go.
I also want to make sure that we are on the same page here when discussing simulationism, so let me say what I understand by it. For me, simulationism in a game means that the rules strive to be representations of in-game reality. Not that any system succeeds at that completely - nor would I want it to succeed perfectly (that would indeed be going too far) - hence there are degrees of simulationism. For example, if a dragon has certain statistics, he will retain the same statistics if encountered by the party, regardless of the party's level, unless there is an in-game (as opposed to metagame) reason to change them. Simulationism is not fully a function of the ruleset, but also of the DM's/GM's style, but ruleset does play an important role.
That's exactly my point about rationality. By looking at 4E, I can tell with reasonable accuracy that it is less suitable to my gaming needs than 3E. The chance of 4E meeting my preferences better than 3E is pretty small. As such, the invesment of time and money to 'test', on the off-chance that it is correct, the hypothesis that 4E might meet my gaming preferences better than 3E, could well be considered irrational - after all, Potential Payoff = Size of Potential Benefit x Likelihood of Potential Benefit.
merelycompetent
First Post
No. I asked you for a rational method to resolve my primary dislike of 4E. I think that we can agree (and I am making an assumption here) that there is no rational method, at this time, to resolve my primary dislike of 4E. Unless you have a method to do so, I don't think you can make a logical argument that my preference is irrational.
However, you are (as far as I can tell) starting from the premise that my dislike of 4E is irrational. That theory does not hold up under scrutiny: My dislike of 4E is directly due to a rational and reasoned analysis of the challenges using 4E creates for my particular situation. Coming to the conclusion that I do not like 4E, under these circumstances, is demonstrably NOT irrational.
Furthermore, since every decision we make is based on "preferences", your description dictates that there is no way that ANY decision can be rational. That simply does not make sense, especially in the sophistry of words you're using.
(excerpted from dictionary.com)
Rational - 1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.; 2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.; 3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.;... 6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.
Preference - 1. the act of preferring (preferring - 1. to set or hold before or above other persons or things in estimation; like better; choose rather than: to prefer beef to chicken.)
I "prefer" to not switch to 4E for my current campaign world, since I have conducted a rational analysis of the work required for it. Therefore, my "disklike" is "rational" - it is reasoned, reasonable, consists of sound judgement, and is sane.
Calling my dislike irrational ignores the definitions of the words.
(edited last two paragraphs for word choice)
Last edited:
Treebore
First Post
I play a game to find out if I like it. Once upon a time I thought I could make a good judgement just by reading through the rules. If I was right I would hate Shadowrun, L5R, Aces and Eights, and others I can't think of right now. However I played them, despite thinking the rules sucked, and I have loved the games ever since.
I read a lot about 4E, was very sure I would not like it, but I had to play it to make sure I did not make a mistake like I would have with the other games. It just so happens this time I was right. I don't like 4E, but now I can say so for sure, because I played it weekly for over two months, 3 to 4 hours at a shot.
Now I am not saying 4E sucks. The rules seem very solid, and role playing is definitely as doable as any other iteration, it just did not excite me. It fell flat. So I stayed with what I like.
So I say that to truly judge a game accurately you do need to play it, but playing it does not mean you will change your mind, it just means you gave the game every chance to excite you. If it changes your mind, and excites you, then your glad you did play it to see how all the rules work together, what kind of synergy the rules create.
If it still fails to excite you, hopefully you played with a good group and shared a lot of laughs, like I did, so the time spent still wasn't a waste.
So based on my experience, I do not believe you can give a game an honest shake without playing it. Reading the rules does not tell you how it will play any more than looking at a car will tell you how well it drives.
This is also why I quit writing reviews. Reading a module does not tell you how much fun you can have actually running it. There are modules that read as if they would play very boring, but my group had a blast. There are modules that read like they would be fun, engrossing, and be awesome, but fell flat and were frustrating.
Plus tastes just vary. There were 3E WOTC books that people slammed, and I ignored them for a long time. Then I finally looked at them myself, and liked or even loved them. So not only do I no longer write reviews, I don't read them anymore either. I check things out for myself.
I read a lot about 4E, was very sure I would not like it, but I had to play it to make sure I did not make a mistake like I would have with the other games. It just so happens this time I was right. I don't like 4E, but now I can say so for sure, because I played it weekly for over two months, 3 to 4 hours at a shot.
Now I am not saying 4E sucks. The rules seem very solid, and role playing is definitely as doable as any other iteration, it just did not excite me. It fell flat. So I stayed with what I like.
So I say that to truly judge a game accurately you do need to play it, but playing it does not mean you will change your mind, it just means you gave the game every chance to excite you. If it changes your mind, and excites you, then your glad you did play it to see how all the rules work together, what kind of synergy the rules create.
If it still fails to excite you, hopefully you played with a good group and shared a lot of laughs, like I did, so the time spent still wasn't a waste.
So based on my experience, I do not believe you can give a game an honest shake without playing it. Reading the rules does not tell you how it will play any more than looking at a car will tell you how well it drives.
This is also why I quit writing reviews. Reading a module does not tell you how much fun you can have actually running it. There are modules that read as if they would play very boring, but my group had a blast. There are modules that read like they would be fun, engrossing, and be awesome, but fell flat and were frustrating.
Plus tastes just vary. There were 3E WOTC books that people slammed, and I ignored them for a long time. Then I finally looked at them myself, and liked or even loved them. So not only do I no longer write reviews, I don't read them anymore either. I check things out for myself.
I have to disagree, still.
I can tell a lot about whether I'd like a car just by looking at it, starting off with the fact that I'm not buying anything with a manual transmission. I'm not buying anything that is designed primarily for off-road use. I'm not buying anything with fewer than 3 doors and 4 seats. I won't buy a car that requires the use of premium fuel. I won't buy a ragtop convertible, and a hardtop is a hard sell too. Cars with any one of those qualities are automatically off my list- for one reason or another, they absolutely will not work for my lifestyle.
If you include "reading about a car" to be equivalent to "looking at it," you can add the fact that any car with a historically poor service record is also cut from my list without a test drive.
Same deal for 4Ed: it simply had too many features that I didn't care for- I didn't need to take it for a spin.
Treebore
First Post
Well, we obviously disagree. I'm just saying why I think differently than you.
No, I do not include reading a car to reading about it. A car has hard statistical data telling you exactly how it should operate, etc... such data is not available for RPG's.
As for 4E, I didn't like its features either, I thought I wouldn't like how they worked either. I had similar thoughts about many other RPG's too. Many times I was right, but I found times I was wrong. I wanted to make sure I wasn't wrong. So I played. This time I wasn't wrong. Since I also played with a good group of people it wasn't a waste of my time either.
I have read posts of others who thought they wouldn't like 4E, then they played, like I did. They ended up liking 4E.
Do you know with absolute surety you won't like 4E? Nope. You never will until you play. At this point you have yourself convinced you wouldn't like it. You would probably end up still feeling the same after playing, like I did. However it is not an obsolute certainty until you play it and see how it actually runs.
Your obviously fine with not being absolutely certain. However, considering how much fun I ended up having playing some games I thought I would hate, and the fact it was "D&D", my favorite style of RPG for over 20 years, I had to be absolutely and postively sure I did not like 4E, so I played it. Now I know, with nearly 30 hours of play time, that I do not like 4E.
Your able to be convinced well enough without playing it, I needed to play it to be certain. Just part of how people are different. Thats all.
I guess I am saying that liking or disliking a system is arational - neither rational nor irrational.
If you use a strict definition of rationality, it is a decision-making process. Preferences as such cannot be rational or not - these are apriori goals. Rationality can be used as a process to decide on something based on the preferences as inputs, but the preferences themselves are not rational or irrational. That's what I am trying to say, because in my experience many people conflate the decision-making process with the preferences themselves. I think we are mostly in agreement on that - we are just approaching it from slightly different angles.
That's a pretty good analogy on your part. You can tell a great deal about a car by looking at it and reading about it - you don't need to buy it to test it out for a few months. This is all the more the case if you know a good amount about car mechanics and have been driving and modifying cars for decade(s) - as I (and I would guess a not insignificant number of other gamers) have played, DMed and modified D&D. Yes, your analogy is a good one.
RPGs do you one better - they give you almost their entire workings (though not necessarily the decisions behind them) in the book!
You are correct that you will never 'know' with absolute certainty whether you like the game until you play it, but you can know with a very large degree of certainty. Heck, even if you play it you will never know with 'absolute' certainty that you don't like it - maybe the sessions you played all turned out to be unlucky... If your degree of certainty that you won't like it is high enough, however, the investment of time and money into the game is not worth it to find out, when you could be using this time and money to do something you know you enjoy.
Besides, if you end up not liking it, but paid for the books (rather than just having read them to a store) you end up financially supporting a decision to shift the game to a different than your own demographic. You may be fine with that, but I would have a problem paying for something that deliberately set out to ignore my preferences/concerns in favor of a different demographic. That, though, is going a bit off-topic.
Tha'ts perfectly fine. Nobody is blaming you for that in any way shape or form. What we are arguing, however, is that it is not necessary for us to play 4E to know (with a very reasonable degree of certainty) that we don't like it.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
It is a perfect analogy-- and you didn't even mention not liking the red paint job.
Similar Threads
- Poll
