The Impasse

[Fenes]

Okay, now it has been shown that simulationism doesn't have to equal realism at all, so what's next on the accusations toward 4th edition? That it was made from the skin of little human children?

It's not about accusations, it's about stating why one does not like 4E. For me, it's lots of little things that turn me off. Others may have no trouble with them, and as I posted, I could probably solve any single of them with a number of house rules, but it's simply not worth the effort.

That doesn't mean it's not a good game - but it's not to my taste. And for my take on simulationism, 4E's martial encounter and daily powers (as one example) is a much bigger hurdle to overcome than 3E's economy (which I basically house-ruled away by turning to an abstract wealth system).

It might be different if I had to judge between 3.0 and 4.0 and not between my own version of 3.0 and the out-of-the-box 4.0.

 

[Fenes]

I am not sure if you missed my post regarding that, but:
4E stunts are not weaker than powers.

If stunts were not weaker than daily powers, people wouldn't use encounter powers much less at-wills. I am sorry, but even without playing 4E myself, that's not the case or these forums would be drowned in "powers are useless!" threads.
If stunts were not weaker than encounter powers, no one would use at-wills, and people would complain about at-wills being useless and a waste of space.
If stunts are equal to at-wills, they are pretty much useless from an efficiency point of view - which is, as human nature and the MMOGs taught us, all that counts for the majority of gamers.

 

[xechnao]

And for my take on simulationism, 4E's martial encounter and daily powers (as one example) is a much bigger hurdle to overcome

3e combat rules (or D&D in general) are not simulationist either though. The I go you go timing economy system, the way movement works is not something that reflects how the world works does it?
Of course 4e dives into even deeper waters but they are the same waters. My problem is not the depth it achieved -this is a quality IMO in respect to 3e. My problem is that it did not change waters. Perhaps I want something more than D&D but if you consider 3e as D&D then IMO 4e is a better D&D.
But perhaps if you do not like 4e this means that you do not like 3e either -this could be true because 3e is not so optimized for its merits and the actual strength and weaknesses of the system are less apparent -
I would say that 3e is the presentation or introduction of the D20 system and 4e its optimization. So if you do not like 4e, perhaps you do not like the D20 system.

 

[Fenes]

So if you do not like 4e, perhaps you do not like the D20 system.

No. I like d20. Likes and dislikes you can't fully rationalize. That people try to anyway is part of why we have edition wars.

 

[xechnao]

No. I like d20. Likes and dislikes you can't fully rationalize. That people try to anyway is part of why we have edition wars.

I understand that preference or favor of something can have many causes or reasons. But we are trying to see it here from a purely mechanics functional standpoint :the merits of D20 as a system. We are judging the mechanics as mechanics and not as the fun you have had with them.

 

[Fenes]

I understand that preference or favor of something can have many causes or reasons. But we are trying to see it here from a purely mechanics functional standpoint :the merits of D20 as a system. We are judging the mechanics as mechanics and not as the fun you have had with them.

As soon as you mention "likes" you've left the mechanical aspect. You can debate whether or not something is simulationist, but you can't debate whether or not someone likes it.

 

[xechnao]

As soon as you mention "likes" you've left the mechanical aspect. You can debate whether or not something is simulationist, but you can't debate whether or not someone likes it.

Well the mechanical aspect may make part of it. It may not be the reason, but this does not mean it may not be a part of the reason or that it wont be the reason if you are able to have a different look and consider it in a different way.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If stunts were not weaker than daily powers, people wouldn't use encounter powers much less at-wills. I am sorry, but even without playing 4E myself, that's not the case or these forums would be drowned in "powers are useless!" threads.
If stunts were not weaker than encounter powers, no one would use at-wills, and people would complain about at-wills being useless and a waste of space.
If stunts are equal to at-wills, they are pretty much useless from an efficiency point of view - which is, as human nature and the MMOGs taught us, all that counts for the majority of gamers.

Well, you are still wrong. Going by the math for power damage and by stunt damage, the damage is en par with at-wills, encounter and daily powers (depending on which column you take - Low, Moderate or High damage, and if you use "Limited Damage Expressions" or regular damage - the former indicates a stunt that can't be repeated easily).

I think the reason why people don't use stunts is because they have their powers and it's easier to look those up than to think of a stunt in any given scenario.

As soon as you mention "likes" you've left the mechanical aspect. You can debate whether or not something is simulationist, but you can't debate whether or not someone likes it.

Agreed.

 

[glass]

If your problem is about acknowledging who influenced who first I agree with whatever you want to believe.

Please highlight where I used the word 'influenced'. You can't, because I didn't. I was responding to your assertion that they had implemeted MMO combat in 4e.

Implementing MMO combat requires code, and hardware to run it on. IOW, it requires an MMO. Thus 'implementing MMO combat' in D&D is impossible by definition.


glass.

 

[xechnao]

Please highlight where I used the word 'influenced'. You can't, because I didn't. I was responding to your responding to your assertion that they had implemeted MMO combat in 4e.

Implementing MMO combat requires code, and hardware to run it on. IOW, it requires an MMO. Thus 'implementing MMO combat' in D&D is impossible by definition.


glass.

Ahh, ok. Did not realize what your argument was back then. I was not trying to use the word to intend that technical kind of meaning. Thanks for clearing out and correcting me