Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[Raven Crowking]

No, you were quite clear.

Good.

And I'd also like to take this moment to thank you for continuing to respond to the substance of posts, rather than to try to engage in the contest of one-upmanship to which I fear this thread is degenerating. I'd XP you again if I could.

(And I will try to remember that I should when the opportunity arises again.)

I wasn't, however, talking about pointing out that someone's reasoning is faulty. I was referring to the fact that doing so by taking it to an absurd extreme often leads to a less, not more, rational conversation.

Depending upon those conversing, I agree with you.

I also agree with you about all of the following:

* Some people are capable of running D&D without a grid regardless of edition.

* Running D&D without a grid is a skill that can be learned.

* While it isn't unreasonable to assume that different people might have an easier time with one edition than the other, it is unreasonable to assume that one could not learn to run either.

Where I disagree is

comparing running 4e gridless to trying to swim in a raging river that would sweep an elephant away actually misdirects the conversation, because it suggests that doing so is either impossible, or at the very least superhuman

AFAICT, and the way I read it, no one is saying that you must be superhuman or that it is impossible to run 4e without a grid. AFAICT, and IMHO, the example was made absurdly large because smaller examples failed.

It is rather like the Monty Hall Problem]Error -- when the example consists of three doors, most people simply do not get it. When the example consists of 1 million doors, OTOH, few people fail to understand what is happening in terms of odds.

Because, in the end, what it comes down to is that EITHER doing without the grid is easier in 1e than 4e, OR the grid offers the same degree of helpfulness to both.

One can be true, or the other can be true.

Both cannot be true.

There is not necessarily a "value" appended to the observation; or, if there is, it is purely subjective. However, the observation will have an effect on how difficult it is to run one edition without a grid as compared to another.

Imagining that you can have it both ways (and I am not saying that you are doing so) helps no one, least of all the person so doing.




RC

 

[Fanaelialae]

Good.

And I'd also like to take this moment to thank you for continuing to respond to the substance of posts, rather than to try to engage in the contest of one-upmanship to which I fear this thread is degenerating. I'd XP you again if I could.

(And I will try to remember that I should when the opportunity arises again.)

Thanks.

Depending upon those conversing, I agree with you.

I also agree with you about all of the following:

* Some people are capable of running D&D without a grid regardless of edition.

* Running D&D without a grid is a skill that can be learned.

* While it isn't unreasonable to assume that different people might have an easier time with one edition than the other, it is unreasonable to assume that one could not learn to run either.

Where I disagree is



AFAICT, and the way I read it, no one is saying that you must be superhuman or that it is impossible to run 4e without a grid. AFAICT, and IMHO, the example was made absurdly large because smaller examples failed.

It is rather like the Monty Hall Problem]Error -- when the example consists of three doors, most people simply do not get it. When the example consists of 1 million doors, OTOH, few people fail to understand what is happening in terms of odds.

Sorry, but I don't agree that it's the same. One is an illustration of mathematical probability. The other is a subjective comparison that carries with it irrelevant, unnecessary, and potentially misleading baggage.

Just because a person can imagine a hypothetical scenario where no degree of skill with swimming will save him, doesn't mean that there aren't many possible scenarios where swimming would or could save him. It also doesn't consider whether the impossible scenario is relevant to the topic at hand (if we're discussing relatively calm bodies of water, then bringing up a raging river is not relevant).

Because, in the end, what it comes down to is that EITHER doing without the grid is easier in 1e than 4e, OR the grid offers the same degree of helpfulness to both.

One can be true, or the other can be true.

Both cannot be true.

There is not necessarily a "value" appended to the observation; or, if there is, it is purely subjective. However, the observation will have an effect on how difficult it is to run one edition without a grid as compared to another.

Imagining that you can have it both ways (and I am not saying that you are doing so) helps no one, least of all the person so doing.

I'm glad you agree that it is not an objective determination. However, it seems to overlook the initial point (about learning skills such as running without a grid).

Let's assume that you currently hold the first stance (gridless is easier in 1e). Do you not consider it possible that, were you to practice running 4e without a grid for a reasonable number of sessions, you might change your mind and hold the second stance instead (grid offers equal helpfulness to both)?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thanks.

I call 'em as I see 'em.

Sorry, but I don't agree that it's the same.

Then use the uphill example, and assume that the other example was written with the purpose of clarifying (however much it may have failed to do so IYHO). That way, you are not compounding what you see to be a problem.

Just because a person can imagine a hypothetical scenario where no degree of skill with swimming will save him, doesn't mean that there aren't many possible scenarios where swimming would or could save him.

No one is arguing this.

I'm glad you agree that it is not an objective determination. However, it seems to overlook the initial point (about learning skills such as running without a grid).

I haven't overlooked it; it's irrelevent to the point. For example:

Let's assume that you currently hold the first stance (gridless is easier in 1e). Do you not consider it possible that, were you to practice running 4e without a grid for a reasonable number of sessions, you might change your mind to the second stance (grid offers equal helpfulness to both)?

No, because in this case I would not conflate my personal experience with the difficulty level offered.

To put it in RPG terms (again), the DC is set, and my skill is a bonus I add to my die roll. If I can always take 10, I have a +10 bonus, and the DC is 20, I will always succeed. But it would be foolish of me to say that, because I was adding 10 + 10, the result was not 20. The DC exists regardless of my skill.

In this case, if the DC for 1e was 15, and the DC for 4e was 20, I would still always succeed at both -- there would be no measurable difference for me -- but 4e would still be harder than 1e.

Valuation is subjective. Perception of difficulty is subjective. Actual difficulty, in this case, is at least theoretically measurable.




RC

 

[Fanaelialae]

No, because in this case I would not conflate my personal experience with the difficulty level offered.

To put it in RPG terms (again), the DC is set, and my skill is a bonus I add to my die roll. If I can always take 10, I have a +10 bonus, and the DC is 20, I will always succeed. But it would be foolish of me to say that, because I was adding 10 + 10, the result was not 20. The DC exists regardless of my skill.

In this case, if the DC for 1e was 15, and the DC for 4e was 20, I would still always succeed at both -- there would be no measurable difference for me -- but 4e would still be harder than 1e.

Valuation is subjective. Perception of difficulty is subjective. Actual difficulty, in this case, is at least theoretically measurable.




RC

I'm of the school of thought that if the highest DC is 20 and a 20 can be attained by taking 10, then the DC difference is merely academic (and therefore largely irrelevant). A 1.1 lb object is heavier than one that weighs exactly 1 lb; however, it simply isn't a noticeable or meaningful difference for a healthy adult who lifts each, despite that a precision scale would certainly note the difference.

I think your DC analogy above is actually a pretty good one for this discussion, though I would probably set the default DCs at 11 and 12, myself. I don't deny that 4e is probably a little harder to run without a grid than 1e; I just don't think it's significantly harder. Pretty much anyone can learn to run 1e with a little practice. I believe it to be the same with 4e. I knew a DM who wasn't exactly a genius and yet was still capable of running 3e without a grid. IMO, based on that anyone can do it with any edition provided they're willing to apply themselves.

Realistically speaking, I think deriving an objective difficulty value for both 4e and 1e would be approximately as difficult as predicting the next two presidents using the laws of physics. Sure, if we eliminate the existence of a higher power, free will, and quantum mechanics it's probably possible (in theory). However, it isn't feasible in any practical sense in the real world. There are an enormous number of minute difference between the two editions, each of which you'd have to objectively measure according to a scale that hasn't even been invented (AFAIK).

Even if it were possible, such a number would be of dubious value, since the most meaningful value is your own subjective value. If the objective difficulty value of 1e is 7 and 4e is 9, how is that of any relevance to me if I find it subjectively easier to run 4e?

 

[Scribble]

The only thing that will settle this debate is a good ol'fashioned dance off.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't deny that 4e is probably a little harder to run without a grid than 1e; I just don't think it's significantly harder.

<snip>

Realistically speaking, I think deriving an objective difficulty value for both 4e and 1e would be approximately as difficult as predicting the next two presidents using the laws of physics.

Fair enough. FWIW, as far as I am concerned, I will call that settled.

The only thing that will settle this debate is a good ol'fashioned dance off.

D'oh! I called it settled too soon. Now I'll miss the dance off.










RC

 

[Jhaelen]

The only thing that will settle this debate is a good ol'fashioned dance off.

Hardly surprising. That's how every debate with RC is eventually settled. Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hardly surprising. That's how every debate with RC is eventually settled. Cheers!

Is that supposed to be insulting?

I agree that I don't say "Gee, you're right" simply on the basis of your insisting that you are. If what a person says doesn't follow, I don't grant it some sort of mythic power of persuasion for no reason. Insistance is not refutation.

OTOH, I can point to specific posts where I have said I was wrong. Which is more than I can say for many others here. And that is because the refutation was valid, and demonstrated that my position was in error.

Also, dance offs, like bow ties, are cool.



RC

 

[Jhaelen]

Is that supposed to be insulting?

Nah. You may take it as a compliment if you like.

You just have a tendency to argue your points ad nauseam if you think they have not been refuted. I don't think there's anyone on this forum who is so, mhm, enduring, persistent, stubborn?!

So, carry on! (or maybe dance off, if you prefer...)

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'll take it as a compliment, then.

After all, the reverse is also true -- if I believe I have been refuted, I don't mind saying so. And I am willing to hold my new position with equal tenacity until it is, in turn, refuted (if it is).

And, I would like to point out, my opinion of 4e has been greatly improved by folks who have successfully demonstrated that some of my initial perceptions about the system were wrong. I appreciate a coherent position!


RC