Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[Imaro]

Good one, I see what you did there. Where are the "applause" smileys when you need them?

Your hyperbole is mildly amusing but I'm not really that interested in it since once again it seems like baiting. I think I've already made my point and opinion abundantly clear. Several others have done so too. I'm just not that interested in seeing the thread devolve into another "edition war" argument framed by exaggeration.

If you want to compare 4e combat and going gridless to a raging river have fun at it, I'm sure someone will bite. Good luck with that one.

There is no "baiting" going on here and I am not comparing 4e to a raging river or anything else. However I am, as RC pointed out above showing the fallacy in your logic. That is all, haven't brought up any editions, though I feel like you are using that insinuation to really say... "I don't want to discuss Well I'm sorry but this is a forum and you should expect a statement like that to be challenged.

 

[Fanaelialae]

There is no "baiting" going on here and I am not comparing 4e to a raging river or anything else. However I am, as RC pointed out above showing the fallacy in your logic. That is all, haven't brought up any editions, though I feel like you are using that insinuation to really say... "I don't want to discuss Well I'm sorry but this is a forum and you should expect a statement like that to be challenged.

D'karr's analogy, however, was about learning/perfecting a skill. Hence, your comparison only makes sense if you're comparing 1e to a placid pool and 4e to a raging river.

While there's certainly room to argue which system is more difficult to run grid-less, suggesting such a leap in difficulty (1e = easy while 4e = nigh impossible) seems absurd in light of points made in this thread.

1e had shield sides and facing whereas 4e has flanking and opportunity attacks. While you might have an easier time adjudicating one than the other without a grid, I think it's pretty clear that they're still at least somewhere in the same ballpark.

 

[Raven Crowking]

D'karr's analogy, however, was about learning/perfecting a skill. Hence, your comparison only makes sense if you're comparing 1e to a placid pool and 4e to a raging river.

No, the point is accurate regardless of the scale used.

Demonstrating an absurd conclusion of logic is often used as a means of demonstating that the logic itself is in error even where the conclusion drawn is not absurd.

This is because it is generally easier to notice the fault in logic when the scale is ramped up so that the conclusion is obviously wrong than it is notice the same when the conclusion falls within the realm of acceptable possibility.

It should also be noted that demonstrating logic is faulty does not demonstrate that conclusion is faulty. I can say:

Fish live in water.
Birds live in trees.
Therefore, a trout is a fish.​

Which is fallicious logic, but which comes to a correct conclusion. This, again, sometimes makes it difficult to see where the fault lies, as the conclusion is acceptable.



RC

 

[D'karr]

D'karr's analogy, however, was about learning/perfecting a skill. Hence, your comparison only makes sense if you're comparing 1e to a placid pool and 4e to a raging river.

Thank you, somebody that reads in context.

My analogy has to do with gaining experience in a skill such as DMing. Which you only get better at with practice. I'm pretty sure that was the context used in the part he was referencing.

The hyperbole makes it seem like the skill is useless when applied to going gridless in 4e, which I can only imagine would be the equivalent of a raging river that would drown an elephant.

His leap in logic is fallacious and I'm not going to go in circles with the same tired argument.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Ah, but we now get into the esoterical. Is the game good because of the game or is it good because of the DM.

Neither.
If we measure good by the entertainment value provided by the experience then it is good because of the combined contributions of the players and the DM. A great game is possible with a great group of people regardless of the rules in use. A great DM enhances any game but he/she can't make it the best it can be alone. Likewise, a solid set of rules (even with a superb DM running them) won't be able to produce the magic for a group of apathetic disinterested players.

An rpg session has always been about the people.

 

[Crothian]

Interesting example... so going by your philosophy, it will be no harder for them to swim in a raging river than it is in a 3ft pool of gently swaying water, right? I mean with enough experience they will be able to swim against currents that could carry an elephant away, as essentially they are just swimming in water... correct?

Maybe they can. People don't know their limits until they try to exceed them. DMs might be able to run gridless 4e or 2e, or any game that way if they try. It would take work on the DMs part and they might have to start small and train and learn how to improve their game to make it work, but I like to think anyone can do that is willing to work at it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

His leap in logic is fallacious and I'm not going to go in circles with the same tired argument.

It is fine to choose not to engage, but Imaro's statement is neither a leap in logic, nor is it fallacious.

To put it in RPG terms, imagine a chasm with a DC 40 to leap across. An untrained human has exactly a 0% chance of leaping across the chasm. A human with a +21 bonus to the appropriate skill has a slim chance of leaping across the chasm. A human with a +39 bonus will succeed every time.

While it is obvious that skill is operative in allowing a task to be accomplished, and while it is obvious that increasing one's skill makes a task easier whether the DC is 15 or 40 (again, in RPG terms), it is nonetheless true that less skill is needed to accomplish the DC 15 task than the DC 40.

One is easier than the other; the other is harder than the first.

So, the character with a +39 bonus will view both as being trivially easy, but that individual should not confuse this with the relative difficulty, in general or in fact, of each task. After all, not everyone has a +39 bonus!


RC

 

[Fanaelialae]

No, the point is accurate regardless of the scale used.

Demonstrating an absurd conclusion of logic is often used as a means of demonstating that the logic itself is in error even where the conclusion drawn is not absurd.

This is because it is generally easier to notice the fault in logic when the scale is ramped up so that the conclusion is obviously wrong than it is notice the same when the conclusion falls within the realm of acceptable possibility.

It should also be noted that demonstrating logic is faulty does not demonstrate that conclusion is faulty. I can say:

Fish live in water.
Birds live in trees.
Therefore, a trout is a fish.​

Which is fallicious logic, but which comes to a correct conclusion. This, again, sometimes makes it difficult to see where the fault lies, as the conclusion is acceptable.



RC

Thanks RC, but seeing as I was a Philosophy major for a time, I've studied logic. Despite that it's been a while, and despite my disgust with modern philosophy in general, I still retain much of it.

While you aren't incorrect, you do seem to be overlooking the fact that any logical comparison can be taken to absurdity. When seeking to debunk another's logic via extreme examples, one is best served avoiding absurd examples.

One can learn to swim in a pool.
There are bodies of water that are too difficult to swim regardless of one's skill.
Therefore, learning to swim is pointless.​

Sorry, but I can't agree with that logic. The technique you refer to is, IME and IMO, more often used for cheap verbal prestidigitation than for anything productive. Note, I'm not accusing anyone of doing so in this thread, but rather explaining my own general distaste for the method.

 

[D'karr]

It is fine to choose not to engage, but Imaro's statement is neither a leap in logic, nor is it fallacious.

To put it in RPG terms, imagine a chasm with a DC 40 to leap across. An untrained human has exactly a 0% chance of leaping across the chasm. A human with a +21 bonus to the appropriate skill has a slim chance of leaping across the chasm. A human with a +39 bonus will succeed every time.

While it is obvious that skill is operative in allowing a task to be accomplished, and while it is obvious that increasing one's skill makes a task easier whether the DC is 15 or 40 (again, in RPG terms), it is nonetheless true that less skill is needed to accomplish the DC 15 task than the DC 40.

One is easier than the other; the other is harder than the first.

So, the character with a +39 bonus will view both as being trivially easy, but that individual should not confuse this with the relative difficulty, in general or in fact, of each task. After all, not everyone has a +39 bonus!


RC

And if running 4e gridless was the equivalent of jumping a DC 40 chasm or swimming across a raging river that would carry an elephant away, I might even give consideration to the premise. However, that assumption would be starting from a false premise, therefore it is fallacious. The inference that running gridless 4e is like a DC 40 chasm or a raging river is where the fallacy starts. My only inference from the context of my previous discussions was that experience, as it relates to this, comes from practice, and that practice comes from doing and not necessarily from reading about it.

My kids couldn't swim. They practiced and now they can. They could not have learned and gotten better without getting in the water.

People couldn't run a game gridless. They've practiced and now they can. They could not have done it with out going ahead and doing it, instead of reading how HARD it is on message boards..

Look at my discussion and if that is not what I said, then I'll correct my statement.

 

[Imaro]

Maybe they can. People don't know their limits until they try to exceed them. DMs might be able to run gridless 4e or 2e, or any game that way if they try. It would take work on the DMs part and they might have to start small and train and learn how to improve their game to make it work, but I like to think anyone can do that is willing to work at it.

You may be correct, but again there can be an inherent difficulty to something that, irregardless of skill level, exists. It is harder to run a 5 min mile than it is to run a 10min mile... though one's skill level may allow him to do either one... it takes a greater exertion, greater fitness, greater training, etc. to achieve a 5 min mile than it does a 10min mile. This is what some seem unwilling to admit, instead focusing on the minutae in my examples instead of the point I am making.