A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[ggroy]

I think that's part of it, sure. Much of the Edition Wars relies on vaguely-defined terms, so that you're not committed to a specific point and can dodge around defenses more easily.

Some people genuinely enjoy this style of argument, with easily movable "goalposts".

In general, this seems to be case universally in life (especially outside of rpg games).

 

[Raven Crowking]

And at last you actually put up something that can be discussed. Artificial constraints, as an inherent feature of video games that aren't present in tabletop RPGs. And it's quite correct.

And not so easy to "rip apart", so there has been a stunning lack of discussion thereof from the side that supposedly just wants to "understand". And the only response prior to yours again bangs the drum of the meaning being "insulting".

These things reinforce my belief that the point was never "I don't understand" but always "Give me something to use to rip your conclusions to shreds".

There is not one iota of evidence that, for example, Dannager, has posted here for any other purpose. I except you from that statement, as this post is actually an attempt to communicate, rather than an attempt to "disprove without understanding" or "rip the other side to shreds".

Not that this is unique to videogames.

It need not be unique to video games to be associated with them. Four wheels and a steering wheel are not unique to cars, either.


RC

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't think anyone is saying that the word is inherently offensive. It's the use of the word that matters.

In the phrase "I think that 4E is the worst edition of D&D ever because it's too videogamey" it's clearly meant as an insult, for example. And if the speaker has any experience on these forums, he knows that the term in question is likely to raise some backs from previous use of that specific term as an insult.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall many statements along the lines of "4E is great! It's so videogamey!" Any actual use of the term is by those putting the game down.

Actually, it was indeed stated that the word is inherently offensive. In fact, if you check the quote of mine you chose to respond to, I was replying to someone that was saying that was indeed the case:

Originally Posted by Neonchameleon
There is a huge difference. Nice is not a put down (unless you are The Witch). Video-gamey is.

However, the point of this thread is that using "video-gamey" as a descriptive term is indeed a slight against video games. Now, it might be used as a term to attack 4e, but that does not make it a slight against video games. My point is just that, not the validity of any stated claim.

It's not insulting video games when used comparatively as an insult to 4e. It's merely insulting to 4e. Whether or not those claims or valid logically is something I have yet to comment on. I've simply pointed out that it's not inherently insulting to video games (even if it insults 4e), and that it's a valid way of communicating feeling (if not reasoning, which is often overlooked when feelings are involved).

I'm addressing the actual topic of the thread, rather than any edition war that might be happening in the thread (which is definitely the case, though I will not be dragged into it). Because, even if I vehemently disagree with literally everyone in this thread on everything they've written, I'd still say to play what you like

Possibly not. Neither is whistling. But go into a crowded bar in Atalanta and loudly whistle "Marching through Georgia". Tell me if you get out with all your teeth.

Unless everyone in this forum is against the term, then I don't think it's an accurate comparison, is it?

Of course it isn't. Context matters. And the context of calling 4e video-gamey is the legions of idiots and trolls who kept saying "Hur-hur. It's just like WoW." Those you happily align yourself with based on the rest of this post.

Again, I've never stated my opinion on 3.x in this thread, much less 4e. I've commented on how speaking of "video-gamey" things is a statement of feeling, and that using video games as a comparison is not inherently insulting to video games. I have, in fact, said that people aligning on both sides is not productive (as it encourages edition wars), and asked both sides to remain civil (I believe I used the term "plea").

You may not like when people say "4e is too video-gamey" and that's understandable. I've never expressed my opinion, really. However, I have stated that it's not insulting to video games, and admitted that used in that context, it is an insult against 4e.

However, the point of the thread is not "is using the phrase 'video-gamey' to describe 4e bad?" It is, in fact, that using the term is a shot a video games, which is, as I've tried to explain, not inherently the case.

Of course. But when you are told you are being unintentionally offensive, unless you have any good reason to wish to move to being intentionally offensive (as in the case of someone thinking "it's okay to have an African American president" is offensive), then the polite thing to do is stop being offensive. The all too common thing to do is double down and switch from being unintentionally offensive to deliberately offensive.

I agree with you if the phrase is used to attack 4e, but again, that's an attack on 4e, and not video games, as people in this thread have argued. I'm not presenting the same idea that everyone in this thread is. To attribute their ideas to my own is to misrepresent what I've put forward. I've put forward that the phrase is not a slight against video games, and that is true, even if it does insult 4e. That is a different issue, and one I have not addressed.

No. What won't work is to move from not logically backing something up to trying to back it up and failing. As far as I know, honestly saying "That's just what I feel and I can't express it any more clearly than that" is not something that has caused serious issues.

This still comes down to people being insulted over an edition of D&D (whether that be 3.x or 4e), rather than people being insulted over people attacking video games. When people use it as a comparison, it's not an attack on video games. Which is, again, the point I've made.

People have overlapping likes and dislikes - and not everything is subjective. The search to understand people is never meaningless even if you don't find agreement.

All opinions are subjective, which was my point. I have, in fact, encouraged both sides to be civil, and have tried to express the fact that communication is important. We seem to be in agreement here?

And here we agree.

And in the end, that's all that matters. I have no intention of stepping on your toes in your game, just like you have not tried to step on mine. It's about enjoyment, and to that end, I think we're both succeeding on game night

 

[Raven Crowking]

Different situation, I'd say, because I have seen people say "I really like X because it's so gamist." Gamist is something that a lot of people say they like about their RPGs.

As a point of fact, I have a player who explicitly enjoys video games, and imagines combat in those terms. For him, being able to do moves like in a video game is an inherently good thing. In the case of RCFG, that is a positive.

He plays 4e, and has also described it in video game terms. But in this case, it is a negative. And, again, it has to do with the feeling of artificial constraint.

IME, many players want to be able to do (some of) the things they do in a video game while playing on the tabletop. OTOH, it is a smaller set of players (I personally know none) who wants to feel that the game is constrained as though it were a video game.

IMHO, the Delve format is the largest, and easiest to fix, contributor to this problem (although I outlined others upthread).

If I say "I don't like OD&D because it's too childish", what am I saying about people who prefer OD&D over other editions of D&D?

That they should shug, ignore your opinion, and go back to doing what they enjoy. Because, if they argue with you about it, well, I guess what you are saying is right.


RC

EDIT: Can someone XP JamesonCourage for me? Thanks!

 

[Raven Crowking]

So shouldn't the argument then be "stop attacking/insulting 4E by using this term" instead of trying to hammer down a singular definition for a word that seems to invoke different responses in people?

Some folks have been trying to make that argument for pages, without, you know, actually saying it or being willing to admit that this is what they are trying to say.

Which is rather ironic, given the circumstances.


RC

 

[billd91]

Different situation, I'd say, because I have seen people say "I really like X because it's so gamist." Gamist is something that a lot of people say they like about their RPGs.

The subtle insult is more about the people who enjoy 4E, not about the game itself. The game doesn't care what you say about it, it doesn't have any feelings.

If I say "I don't like OD&D because it's too childish", what am I saying about people who prefer OD&D over other editions of D&D?

It is a different situation but not because someone is using a term you feel is more neutral than videogamey. When you're saying that Martians are shifty and stupid, you're talking about actual people (assuming the martians are real) and that's directly insulting and against the board rules.

But the board rules, even commonly accepted boundaries of etiquette, don't protect your affectations. You have to expect the things you like to suffer a few slings and arrows from people who feel differently from you. If that upsets you, go ahead and make your feelings known in turn. We should listen and believe you. But are your feelings sufficiently important that you should be able to prevent critics from expressing theirs? I don't think so.

Let's take this a bit broader. Would it be acceptable for me, in the Media forum, to say that "Jackass 2's humor was pedestrian and jejune," would that be acceptable? What am I saying about people who really liked the movie and laughed uproariously at it? Is that more acceptable than saying something negative about 4e/WotC/video games/3e/Pathfinder? If so, why should it be?

 

[Umbran]

Hmm, so, let's see...

Folks getting personal? Yeah.

Folks making accusations of not discussing in good faith? Yeah.

General head-butting and abject rejection of what each other say? Yeah.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of value here to offset the general stinkyness.

EN World is not intended as a place for you guys to fight trench-warfare, dug in and unwilling to budge. If you aren't actually interested in learning from the person who as an opposing opinion, now would be a good time to walk away from this conversation.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Good God, are people still hashing out these done-to-death-raised-as-undead-and-killed-again pseudo-arguments?

 

[Raven Crowking]

But we've finally got a decent explanation - constrained. That one works. I happen to disagree and could go into why, but thank you for being the first person I have ever asked to come up with a decent answer to what the term means without going to crap about powers, healing surges, and the like.

And constrained is something that can be discussed without being unclear and doesn't have a history of offensive nonsense from people who demonstrably do not know what they are talking about and associated putdowns attached to it.

And at last you actually put up something that can be discussed. Artificial constraints, as an inherent feature of video games that aren't present in tabletop RPGs. And it's quite correct. This interactive creative story-telling is the area where tabletop RPGs exceed the capacity of (nearly all) other forms of entertainment.

If the way I was able to articulate the point made it clear to you, it doesn't mean that someone who did not, or was unable to, articulate it in the same way doesn't understand what he means when he uses the term. Even if he means something different.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall many statements along the lines of "4E is great! It's so videogamey!" Any actual use of the term is by those putting the game down.

I've heard it once from a WoW player. Comparing 4e to WoW with a great guild, good quests, and no griefers.

So shouldn't the argument then be "stop attacking/insulting 4E by using this term" instead of trying to hammer down a singular definition for a word that seems to invoke different responses in people?

I'm genuinely interested in what is meant - I know the term can't be meaningless because it comes up from so many sides and from people I don't expect to argue in bad faith. There is clearly something there. Which is why I have kept trying to pick apart to see what's meant until RC came up with a good answer. I'm more interested in learning than not being irritated by border-skirmishes on the edition wars even if I do find them irritating. But yes, that's the other part I have been trying to get across - especially now I've understood the underlying complaint.