What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[BryonD]

Saying the rule set is "videogamey" has nothing to do with DMs or players.

Agreed 100%. And I'll even go further and say that applies to pretty much every complaint or praise I have about any RPG.
Good RP, good players, good DMs, etc, etc.... all add to the overall quality of a gaming experience. And "bad" [all of the above] detract from the quality.

When discussing the merits or failings of a certain game, the conversation really needs to be about the mechanics of that game. To me, saying that GURPS is just as good as Mutants and Masterminds because you roleplay the same in either system is about as meaningful a statement as claiming they are both just as good because the sun rises in the east the next day no matter which game you play.

The mechanics may be a very small factor in the level of fun achieved by a group. I certainly would not claim it is likely to be the controlling factor. But I do not go buy my group off a shelf. When I am deciding between game A and game B, the contents between the covers are the basis of choice.

 

[billd91]

I don't think it's fair or reasonable to expect the insulted party to be responsible for keeping the peace by ignoring obvious insults, especially in a place where they normally come to relax and have a good time. I'm not saying we have to fetishize our emotions to the point where any insult is an excuse for all-out retaliation, but I don't think it's unreasonable to be angry at an intentional insult or to hold the insultor responsible for being a <you know what>.

On the contrary, the forum rules do expect it, at least with respect to civil posts of your own. If you have a problem with an insulting post, report it.

 

[Ourph]

On the contrary, the forum rules do expect it, at least with respect to civil posts of your own. If you have a problem with an insulting post, report it.

It's not contrary to my point at all. Note that I said we shouldn't use our emotional responses to justify retaliation. However, the forum rules don't say "Ignore any insults directed your way. You should just force yourself to not have an emotional response to them." because that's not a reasonable response for someone who comes to ENworld to enjoy themselves. The forum rules hold the insultor responsible and ask that the insulted party handle their emotional response (anger, frustration, what have you) in a way that won't disrupt the forum by reporting it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think anyone who says "4E is videogamey" and refuses to elaborate is trolling.

I disagree, for a multitude of previously stated reasons, the most important being that elaboration gains us nothing.

The only thing that elaboration gives us is a fuse to a little powderkeg. When you try to debate someone about their personal perception of a mechanic, you will never be able to convince them they should think otherwise.

And that being the case, why initiate the debate?

I don't play 4E or WOW. But, when someone states that "4E is too videogamey", I understand what they are trying to convey--that, in their opinion, 4E plays more like a videogame than a PNP roleplaying game. I don't require elaboration. Nor do I consider the statement to be trolling or deliberately provocative. It is merely a negative opinion.

Exactly.

 

[Hussar]

What I mean when I use the term is that the powers-based system feels very constricting, and...well, finite. It feels, in fact, like the game world has been limited by the rule set, whereas prior editions felt freer, more inclusive, and like the action was limited by only one's imagination (and maybe crappy dice rolls).

But, then, why not say that? That's perfectly clear, honest and totally understandable. "I feel that 4e mechanics are too restrictive on my imagination" isn't really something that people can get too fussed about. And you can certainly back up that opinion with examples of why you feel that way.

But, "4e feels like a videogame" only tells me that you don't like 4e. So does, "I don't like 4e". Again, what is gained?

I disagree, for a multitude of previously stated reasons, the most important being that elaboration gains us nothing.

The only thing that elaboration gives us is a fuse to a little powderkeg. When you try to debate someone about their personal perception of a mechanic, you will never be able to convince them they should think otherwise.

And that being the case, why initiate the debate?

Precisely. Why state it in the first place if you do not wish to engage in discussion? Why state "4e is videogamey" if all it is is a negative opinion that cannot be changed by evidence or discussion?

Is the point of posting something to a message board to engage in discussion? But, if your opinion cannot be changed, then you no longer want discussion, you only want vindication.

IOW if your point is so carved in stone that it cannot even be elaborated on, why bother in the first place? What purpose does it serve?

 

[pemerton]

I remember that we (not you and me, "we" EN Worlders) had a lot of discussion about the entire encounter power/balance paradigm 4E highlighted. It was interesting and enlightening in many ways, but I still wonder how much we got "wrong" due to our lack of knowledge of the actual system.

Ah, the memories come flooding back . . .

And the point you go on to make are all good ones, although to be fair to some of us I think the idea that the intricacies of encounter play would be a source of pleasure in the game, as much as (or even to an extent instead of) variety in powers, was at least mooted in some of those threads.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Precisely. Why state it in the first place if you do not wish to engage in discussion? Why state "4e is videogamey" if all it is is a negative opinion that cannot be changed by evidence or discussion?

Is the point of posting something to a message board to engage in discussion? But, if your opinion cannot be changed, then you no longer want discussion, you only want vindication.

IOW if your point is so carved in stone that it cannot even be elaborated on, why bother in the first place? What purpose does it serve?

Why post it? For honesty & completeness. Vindication has nothing to do with it.

If someone asks me what I dislike about 4Ed, I'll give them an honest answer, and among the many things I could list, I will say that its too videogamey.

Now, some of the things I list will be about mechanic/fluff changes that I disagree with for truly debatable reasons.

However, a pure gut feel that the game is too videogamey for me is both 1) a very real aspect of the game I dislike, thus a valid thing for me to list among my dislikes and 2) an emotional/perceptual assessment that is essentially inarguable; generally, it is not accessible to alteration through debate.

The ones seeking vindication are those who want to debate perceptions and then say "See, you were wrong about this and I'm right!"

Say, for instance someone had said "I dislike 4Ed because its too dead-grampaw-y." and you asked for them to explain.

And they post some horror story about their dead grampaw and its convoluted and- to you- only tenuous connection to the deceased, what good will your posts about "You know, 4Ed isn't really connected to your dead grampaw, and here's why...", what kind of reaction do you expect to get? Do you think you're going to convince them that they're wrong, that you'll succeed in getting them to divest themselves of this connection?

Unless you're their psychologist, such a result is highly improbable.

And, while far less charged, the nature of the discussion of someone's videogamey perceptions is also unlikely to go anywhere useful.

IOW, note the objection, recognize it for what it is, and move on to those areas that are truly debatable- how to make combats less grindy, how to convert PCs or other elements from earlier editions, how to design new HR powers/classes/races while maintaining balance, etc.

 

[pemerton]

I've read this explanation many times. I don't understand what you mean when you say that 4E plays more like a videogame than a PNP roleplaying game.

I think part of the explanation is that there are (judging from these forums, at least) a fairly large number of D&D players who are not especially familiar with developments in game design, driven by "indie" games, which 4e has incorporated to a signficant extent into D&D.

Not recognising those changes, and the sort of play they are intended to promote, and the way in which the players at the table are expected to use those mechanics, they make the "videogamey" accuation. To use healing surges as an example, if you play hit points and healing surges as simulationist mechanics, then of course the game will feel absurdly gonzo and video-gamey. If you use them in the way that I assume was intended, however, then you get something much closer to traditional D&D in flavour (heroes who have deep reserves of luck and endurance that enable them to avoid major injury and fight on through minor injury) although with a new mechanic designed to centre the gameplay around the encounter rather than the adventure as a whole.

Unfortunately, there is very little text in either the PHB or DMG for 4e explaining how the designers intend the game to be played. DMG2 is better in this respect.

You are aware, I assume, that Monte Cook is on record as saying that removing the DM from the equation, as far as possible, was a design goal of 3e? That he believed that they went too far? That he believed that 3.5 went further along that path?

<snip>

I don't think it is any surprise that some might feel that 4e take that mandate even farther. I am not saying that this is objectively what occurred, merely that I am not surprised that some people "read" it that way.

And yes--I know about page 42! It think page 42 is terrific, but its use is entirely at the DM's discretion, and for some of us, its not an easy answer to the issue of feeling limited.

This is part of what I mean when I say the 4e PHB and DMG do not do a very good job of explaining how the game should be played. It is crucial for the game to work at the story level (and thus avoid the video-gamey, spamming, absurd gonzo feel) that the GM be obliged to use p 42 frequently. It is no more discretionary than is the GM following the AC and to-hit rules. Again, DMG2 is better in this respect but is still far from ideal (compared for example to Robin Laws similar but much more detailed and elaborated presentation of this sort of stuff in the HeroQuest 2e rulebook).

In 4e the player is encouraged to visualize the infinite choices the character can take in terms of that more finite set of mechanics and differentiate them narratively...Character says I can sing thousands of songs but the Player looks at the character sheet which only lists ... "Rock Blues" and "Hot Dance". . The character may want to do something plausible like do a romantic dance it isnt in the characters specialties but seems obvious to the player and DM it is plausible. So the DM excercises her job..and uses page 42 to extend the games mechanics ie to stretch or take off the lid

... he has less job than he used to involving converting from narrative to simple mechanics a lot of those have been given to the player, but his job of being an enabler for going beyond the explicit rules is now even more important. And there are actual guidelines for it.. Page 42 is used as a short cut reference for this but it is not limited to being expressed on pages 42/43, that say "yes, but.." philosophy applies directly to the idea of opening up the mechanics .. and DMG guidelines encourage doing it in a controlled sort of way.

Somebody reading the players perspective and ignoring the dms (whose job always has been enabling going beyond the rules), may see more restrictions than there are.

Entirely agreed. Unfortunately in my view none of the rulebooks explains it as well as this post does.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Here's a thought.

Instead of us continuing to go around and around about the definitions of videogamey and why they need to be spelled out instead of using the umbrella term, why don't some of those who demand the increased clarity try taking a single definition that's been posted in this thread or the current Videogamey thread and actually try posting a forked thread detailing why that particular definition is not the case?

 

[Hussar]

Here's a thought.

Instead of us continuing to go around and around about the definitions of videogamey and why they need to be spelled out instead of using the umbrella term, why don't some of those who demand the increased clarity try taking a single definition that's been posted in this thread or the current Videogamey thread and actually try posting a forked thread detailing why that particular definition is not the case?

Because that's not the problem? It's not the problem that one particular definition is "wrong". The problem is that there are multiple definitions, any one or more of which could be applicable in a given context.

It's not that videogamey is wrong. It's that it's very, very vague.

But, I do like the suggestion that any more discussion of terminology be taken over to the other thread.

Earlier upthread a number of people stated that what's at stake for them is veracity. That there are a number of criticisms floating around that are just not grounded in fact. In the Where's My Freaking Mule thread, we find the following:

Mules are unheroic.

As are torches, rope, iron spikes, sacks, chalk, 10' poles, flint & tender, iron rations, more rope, mirrors, sprigs of wolfsbane, and garlic. Since you don't need any of these things cluttering up your character sheet, you don't need a mule carrying them, much less porters, torcher bearers, drovers or teamsters for carrying the stuff in and out of the howling wilderness. Nobody ever used that stuff anyway because they all used heroic type IV bags of holding (available for heros to purchase at local general goods stores), and if they did use mules and such anyway, it's all badwrongfun.

I resist your attempts to rain on my 4e loving parade. Get back to the 70's and 80's were wierdo's like you belong.

Which is pretty much a fairly standard (IMO anyway) broadside in an edition war thread. Yet, later on we get:

Uhm...

Hempen rope (50ft) - players handbook
Silken rope (50ft) - players handbook
Torch - players handbook
Climbers Kit - pitons - players handbook
Backpack - adventures kit -players handbook
Fint and Steel - players handbook
Quarterstaff - not quite 10' feet - players handbook
journeybread and trail rations - players handbook
Disguise kit has a mirror, at least I'd rule it does - players handbook
Rare herbs - players handbook

I'm just saying.

Which, to me anyway, is how a lot of edition war threads go.