The Impasse

[Scribble]

Well it's the thought that ounts bean?

Thanks Rel!

 

[catsclaw227]

There have been MANY threads where people who like/love 4e have noted things about it that rubbed them wrong, but instead of pounding on WOTC, they decided to make a houserule and share it. More productive, less anger and unnecessary bashing. And I believe there are much fewer "blind followers" by your definition than you think there are.

This is where the blind truly shine.

I am sorry, but I am not sure what you mean by this.

Are you calling someone blind because they decide to houserule something they don't like and then move on, instead of waving a fist at WOTC?

Or were you just being snarky for snark's sake?

 

[Vegepygmy]

Quick question, where is this from? I'm not trying to call you out, but you just stick a definition up without citing where it's from.

No problem. It's from the Threefold Model FAQ.

On the other hand I went to wikipedia and got this under "GNS Theory"

Yeah, sorry for the confusion. I forgot to consider the GNS definition (because it's crap, IMO). GNS theory "evolved" from the GDS model. And by "evolved" I mean Ron Edwards took the GDS model, redefined the terms to make simulationism ridiculous/irrelevant, then declared victory and walked off the field.

I'm not saying 3.5 is the best simulationist rpg evah... but it tries much, much harder than 4e to be so.

I agree with you completely.

 

[Thasmodious]

No problem. It's from the Threefold Model FAQ.

Yeah, sorry for the confusion. I forgot to consider the GNS definition (because it's crap, IMO). GNS theory "evolved" from the GDS model. And by "evolved" I mean Ron Edwards took the GDS model, redefined the terms to make simulationism ridiculous/irrelevant, then declared victory and walked off the field.

They are both crap. GDS was a theory pushed by people who were, to the person, hardcore simulationists arguing that simulation was the one correct way to play. GNS was a theory that redefined gamism and simulationism as bad and narrativism as the One True Game.

Both need to be taken out in someone's back yard, put down, and buried.

As for 3e and simulationism, its "nods" were the chief source of the problems of 3e, they brought more inconsistency to the game and made the game world less coherent, not more. Things from the needlessly over structured grapple rules to the disarm/trip/sunder "options" to the failure of craft/profession to stand in for freedom of character to polymorph and its abuses... as they developed more subsystems to deal with more situations, the system just developed more holes and less internal consistency. The class system is another example. It didn't have real freedom, only a huge list of multiple choice answers that had to keep expanding both to provide new content and to cover new ideas/player interests.

I understand that if you think "simulationism" is important and that you wish to play D&D because of its status, popularity, support, player base, etc., then 4e is problematic for you and that you are left with 3e. It's also important to note that it was 3e that went in this direction from older editions and that 4e is much more in line with those editions than 3e is. Placing the game world back firmly in the hands of the DM is the primary reason.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Hmm...

See, I hate that WotC created a fundamentally different fantasy RPG and called it D&D. I really dislike the fact that the game created by Gygax & Arneson -- while it may continue to be published due to the blessing of the OGL -- will no longer be the game that new players get when they pick up the books branded with the D&D trademark.

But, on the flip-side, I've defended WotC in the recent furor over their completely justified C&D letters.

Are there fanboys of all stripes? Sure. But there are also plenty of people who can keep an open mind.

 

[Burrito Al Pastor]

When you said "threefold model", I immediately thought of the "pretentious/retro/stupid" model.

It's a flawless model, as far as I'm concerned. I loves me some stupid gaming, with a garnish of retro.

 

[Burrito Al Pastor]

Hmm...
See, I hate that WotC created a fundamentally different fantasy RPG and called it D&D. I really dislike the fact that the game created by Gygax & Arneson -- while it may continue to be published due to the blessing of the OGL -- will no longer be the game that new players get when they pick up the books branded with the D&D trademark.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but "the game created by Gygax & Arneson" predates the OGL by some 26 years, and hasn't been published in 30 years.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Ah, yes. It had been a while since I'd seen a "rounser hates warlords" post. At first I was disappointed you'd neglected to rip dragonborn and tieflings, but I see you corrected that error in a later post.

Attacking other people? Not acceptable. Banned for 3 days

 

[Fenes]

We'd have no edition wars if there were not too many people who think they know best what is fun for others.

 

[Imaro]

As for 3e and simulationism, its "nods" were the chief source of the problems of 3e, they brought more inconsistency to the game and made the game world less coherent, not more. Things from the needlessly over structured grapple rules to the disarm/trip/sunder "options" to the failure of craft/profession to stand in for freedom of character to polymorph and its abuses... as they developed more subsystems to deal with more situations, the system just developed more holes and less internal consistency. The class system is another example. It didn't have real freedom, only a huge list of multiple choice answers that had to keep expanding both to provide new content and to cover new ideas/player interests.

I understand that if you think "simulationism" is important and that you wish to play D&D because of its status, popularity, support, player base, etc., then 4e is problematic for you and that you are left with 3e. It's also important to note that it was 3e that went in this direction from older editions and that 4e is much more in line with those editions than 3e is. Placing the game world back firmly in the hands of the DM is the primary reason.

See I don't think you do understand, read the first paragraph above... again objective statements about "real freedom"...when, in both, 4e and 3e anything can (and sometimes has to) be improvised. Or this little gem of a statement... "They brought more inconsistency to the game and made the game world less coherent, not more." For who because IMHO, it's alot more consistent than 4e is... again subjective =/= objective. Or your commment on disarm/trip/etc... where in 4e it's better to be limited to once per day or some other arbitrary measurement than to have a low chance to succeed at it anytime you want... neither seems especially different, it's all in what you prefer. I guess this is the problem, all of your "truths" about the problems of 3.5 aren't really truths at all, yet you state them like they are. Anything that can be improvised in 4e can be in 3.5, but if you don't want to 3.5 provides a much more robust rules structure to draw examples from.