[forked thread] What constitutes an edition war?

[dagger]

So, if I say that Synnibarr or FATAL is right for me, then there is no criticizing them? No, I disagree, there is good and bad design, the problem is when edition warriors of either "side" choose to ignore criticism of poor design in their game of choice. That's when a thread devolves from a discussion to an edition war, I would say.

Yes but whether something is of poor design or not is a matter of opinion also.

 

[BenBrown]

Yes but whether something is of poor design or not is a matter of opinion also.

To an extent, yes, but people tend to say "poor design" when they really mean "poor design for what I want to do" or "design that was not what I expected and I had gotten my hopes up for without any real evidence" or even "design that is different from they way I've always done it".

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Yes but whether something is of poor design or not is a matter of opinion also.

To an extent, yes, but people tend to say "poor design" when they really mean "poor design for what I want to do" or "design that was not what I expected and I had gotten my hopes up for without any real evidence" or even "design that is different from they way I've always done it".

Well, yes. That appears to be what dagger said. A design is not objectively "good" or "poor" until everyone defines and agrees to some objective criteria by which to make the evaluation.

Much of the disagreement over editions, in fact, actually isn't about edition design at all, but simply about the criteria to judge the editions. Toss out a handful of careless descriptions, and wrap it all up in thin-skin, and edition wars happen.

 

[BenBrown]

Well, yes. That appears to be what dagger said. A design is not objectively "good" or "poor" until everyone defines and agrees to some objective criteria by which to make the evaluation.

Much of the disagreement over editions, in fact, actually isn't about edition design at all, but simply about the criteria to judge the editions. Toss out a handful of careless descriptions, and wrap it all up in thin-skin, and edition wars happen.

Whoops. Misplaced a "not". Sorry 'bout that. Here I am disagreeing with someone I actually agree with--which is another feature I've seen in internet arguments frequently.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

So, if I say that Synnibarr or FATAL is right for me, then there is no criticizing them? No, I disagree, there is good and bad design, the problem is when edition warriors of either "side" choose to ignore criticism of poor design in their game of choice. That's when a thread devolves from a discussion to an edition war, I would say.

Let us turn it around.

4e is badly designed. It focuses over much on combat and the encounter, with a distinct feeling that all actions not pertaining to one or the other were tacked on at the last minute, and poorly tested (as evidenced by the massive errata pertaining to skills).

Does that feel like an attack? It is how I honestly feel about 4e, and what I can point out as a major failing of the game.

Now let me add - if you like 4e then you are wrong to do so. It is not a roleplaying game, but rather a combat and tactical game. That people are managing to use it for roleplaying games, in spite of its systems, is a major achievement.

Again, this is an accurate appraisal of my feelings about the game. Did it feel like I was slighting 4e?

The unnecessary addition of 'if you like 4e then you are wrong to do so' is where I might feel that I have ventured into an aggressive posture, yet folks will tell you that I have taken an antagonistic approach when I first claimed that 4e is bad design - regardless of whether that is my honest opinion or not.

This is because I am starting with the position that you are wrong in liking 4e. That it does not matter how much you like the game, how much your players like the game, or if you find game preparation much easier with 4e than it was with 3.X - that just by preferring 4e you are wrong.

And it is also where my statement becomes false - not all people, campaigns, GMs, players, or groups function in like fashion. That I am happy with Pathfinder, and that my players are happy with Pathfinder, has no bearing on whether you and yours will like Pathfinder (or 4e) as well.

Being more or less of an honest sort, I typically preface things like '4e is badly designed' with 'I think' or 'I feel' and qualify it further with something along the lines of 'for my style of play'.

This is, in fact, more accurate than just baldly stating that '4e is badly designed' - there are folks who vastly prefer 4e over 3.X. And they are allowed to do so. For their style of play it works just fine. For me, and for my style of play, it would not be as satisfying as 3.X.

If you like Synnibarr than play Synnibarr - if it is a game that you and your players enjoy then it is the right game for you. There are moderators on this very forum who would be proud to display their copy of Spawn of Fashan! (And rightly so, I am green with envy that Piratecat owns a copy - I have only seen a second or third edition bootleg - on 1980 era photocopy paper....)

The Auld Grump, but if FATAL is the right game for you and your group then please seek treatment immediately. With modern procedures there is still hope....

 

[pemerton]

Yes but whether something is of poor design or not is a matter of opinion also.

A design is not objectively "good" or "poor" until everyone defines and agrees to some objective criteria by which to make the evaluation.

"Matter of opinion" is a fairly elastic phrase.

Whether chocolate is tastier than caramel as an icecream or milkshake flavouring is a matter opinion.

Whether a milkshake offers as interesting a gastronomic experience as a good quality wine is a matter of opinion.

Whether Macbeth or Hamlet is the superior play is a matter of opinion.

Whether Shakespeare or J K Rowling is the better writer is a matter of opinion.

Not all things which are matters of opinion are subject to opinion in the same way. Of the above, I think there's a very strong case to be made that Shakespeare is a better writer than J K Rowling. I also think there is a fairly strong case to be made in favour of the wine over the milkshake (which is not to say that sometimes, perhaps often, one doesn't want a milkshake rather than a wine - superior doesn't always mean preferable).

I can adduce any objective criteria by which I make the above judgments, but that doesn't shake my confidence in them.

To bring this back to RPGs, here is a design flaw in Rolemaster: The PC creation process - which is complex and involved - produces lovingly detailed, subtly differentiated characters. The PC creation process also strongly encourages (and doesn't fall very far short of guaranteeing) each PC to have some significant, combat-relevant ability. The GM guidelines in RM are fairly thin, but the monster stats are primarily relevant for combat, which together with the PC build rules strongly suggests that PCs are meant, from time to time at least, to engage in combat. And the combat resolution rules are such that low level PCs are likely often to be killed in combat, and even mid-to-high level PCs can suffer very serious consequences (although they are likely to have magic available to mitigate the worst outcomes). So if players and GMs play the game in the fashion that the various bits of the rules and guidelines suggest is the way the game is meant to be played, they will spend a good deal of their time developing new lovingly detailed PCs who run a good chance of never actually getting to be played for very long.

This is a flaw. It's not a fatal flaw - different RM groups develop their own workarounds, and I personally have got nearly 20 years of great play out of Rolemaster. But it's a flaw nevertheless. It's a flaw that is absent from other high-death games (like low-level classic D&D and Tunnels and Trolls) because those games have quick PC gen. I think it's an open question whether it's a flaw in Classic Traveller or not - Traveller does have time-consuming and lovingly detailed PC gen, and it does encourage combat as a significant ingame activity, and combat in Traveller is very deadly - but Traveller does have robust action resolution mechanics for activity other than fighting (like voyaging and trading, for example) which mark a noticeable distinction from Rolemaster.

Here's a design flaw in 3E: The character build and action resolution mechanics for skills are, on the whole, towards the RM/RQ/Traveller style "gritty" end of things. Not every PC can be good at everything, or even that many things; DCs are set in a somewhat realistic fashion (as discussed by Justin Alexander here); except for some of the extreme Balance and Tumbling DCs in the ELH, skills are limited to what is more-or-less humanly possible. The character build and action resolution mechanics for combat, on the other hand, are anything but gritty - even 5th level PCs (who, according to Justin Alexander, at the upper end of real world human possibility) can tackle lions bare-handed, wrestle ogres and the like, and it only gets more wahoo as levels are gained. And the hit point mechanic just exaggerates this wahoo-ness.

This mix of gonzo and gritty is by no means a fatal flaw. But it tends to produce oddities in play, and makes some aspects of world design, and also challenge design, harder than they need be, because when gonzo and gritty touch one another it's not always easy to maintain coherence.

I think that 4e tries to avoid the flaws I've identified in RM and 3E by going gonzo all the way, with both skills and combat, thereby ensuring that the lovingly-built and complex PCs get plenty of screen time to do whatever it is that they're going to do. That some dislike this play experience means that 4e is not the game for them, but I don't think it means therefore that 4e itself is flawed in being gonzo.

Which is not to say that 4e doesn't have design flaws. The complexity and clunkiness of the hiding/percpetion/invisibility/concealment rules is one such. The fact that monster XP doubles every 4 levels while item gp value multiplies by 5 every 5 levels is arguably another, as it makes static encounter design impossible, which is arguably an unnecessary burden on GM prep time - although the rapidly escalating treasure value is meant to serve another purpose, of quickly making irrelevant past GM errors in over- or under-awarding treasure. And the fact that combat bonsues and DCs scale at a different rate from skill bonuses and DCs (not to mention the other much-discussed maths debates around Expertise/Improved Defences) is yet another - as it makes integrating combat and non-combat challenges that much harder.

I can't articulate any objective criteria by which I'm distinguishing my identification of design flaws from mere questions of taste, but I nevertheless think it can be done, despite nevertheless remaining (in some sense) a matter of opinion.

 

[pemerton]

Let us turn it around.

4e is badly designed. It focuses over much on combat and the encounter, with a distinct feeling that all actions not pertaining to one or the other were tacked on at the last minute, and poorly tested (as evidenced by the massive errata pertaining to skills).

Does that feel like an attack? It is how I honestly feel about 4e, and what I can point out as a major failing of the game.

Now let me add - if you like 4e then you are wrong to do so. It is not a roleplaying game, but rather a combat and tactical game. That people are managing to use it for roleplaying games, in spite of its systems, is a major achievement.

Again, this is an accurate appraisal of my feelings about the game. Did it feel like I was slighting 4e?

I'm not sure if you're looking for actual resopnses here, or just setting up your own analysis, but I'll bite anyway.

The first bit about bad design - it grates slightly, because it seems to ignore that 4e envisages the combat/encounter as the principal site of roleplaying, and that this is a viable design space. But the comment about the failure of integration of the combat and non-combat aspects of action resolution is sound, as per my own earlier post in this thread. (I don't think character build mechanics suffer from quite the same problem).

The second bit - about being wrong to like 4e - does seem more aggressive and unwarranted, for two reasons. First, as I noted upthread preferences and superiority can failry easy come apart in the aesthetic domain. Second, in saying that it's a major achievement to use 4e for roleplaying seems to ignore that 4e is intended to make conflict resolution, including combat, the principal site of roleplaying in the game. In this respect, 4e seems to draw on contemporary trends in RPG design, and a disregard of those trends in criticising 4e seems to suggest ignorance rather than legitimate criticism.

But it is certainly possible to criticise 4e's design without edition warring. Some of the recent "fiction first" threads have involved just that, on the part of at least some posters.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I'm not sure if you're looking for actual resopnses here, or just setting up your own analysis, but I'll bite anyway.

The first bit about bad design - it grates slightly, because it seems to ignore that 4e envisages the combat/encounter as the principal site of roleplaying, and that this is a viable design space. But the comment about the failure of integration of the combat and non-combat aspects of action resolution is sound, as per my own earlier post in this thread. (I don't think character build mechanics suffer from quite the same problem).

The second bit - about being wrong to like 4e - does seem more aggressive and unwarranted, for two reasons. First, as I noted upthread preferences and superiority can failry easy come apart in the aesthetic domain. Second, in saying that it's a major achievement to use 4e for roleplaying seems to ignore that 4e is intended to make conflict resolution, including combat, the principal site of roleplaying in the game. In this respect, 4e seems to draw on contemporary trends in RPG design, and a disregard of those trends in criticising 4e seems to suggest ignorance rather than legitimate criticism.

But it is certainly possible to criticise 4e's design without edition warring. Some of the recent "fiction first" threads have involved just that, on the part of at least some posters.

It was intended more as a response to the post I quoted, claiming that some preferences are inherently flawed. (I had done so, in a facetious manner, upthread. Here, I think it was fully serious.)

I do believe that rules discussion can take place in a civil (if, in my case a didactic) fashion.

There have been those, in this thread, who have taken the stance that 4e is a better game and that those who critique it, in a negative or a positive fashion are in the wrong. That by focusing on the combat and encounter resolution 4e was the 'better' game.

Other posters, in other threads, have taken much the same stance for opposite cause in regards to 3e, often likening 4e to a popular MORPG. This is a stance I do not take, though I have sympathy for those who claim that 4e has similarity to a board game. (Largely because I have seen a discussion on boardgames get flamed by a 4e player who thought that 4e was being insulted... the discussion in question was about Warhammer Quest, Hero Quest, Dungeon, and the Ravenloft boardgame.... You know, the actual boardgame? There are folks who are more tempted by the boardgames than the actual RPG. )

I do realize that there are reasons why 4e is focused so tightly on conflict resolution - what many consider to be the 'fun' part of the game. (Here I blame the '20 minutes of fun' quote.)

There are others who have interests that diverge from that line of thought, saying that they are wrong is like saying that folks who like vanilla more than pistachio are wrong. (While of course we all realize that chocolate is the supreme ice cream achievement!)

The Auld Grump

 

[Griego]

It was intended more as a response to the post I quoted, claiming that some preferences are inherently flawed. (I had done so, in a facetious manner, upthread. Here, I think it was fully serious.)

I never did any such thing. You're reading too much into my post.

I do believe that rules discussion can take place in a civil (if, in my case a didactic) fashion.

There have been those, in this thread, who have taken the stance that 4e is a better game and that those who critique it, in a negative or a positive fashion are in the wrong. That by focusing on the combat and encounter resolution 4e was the 'better' game.

Other posters, in other threads, have taken much the same stance for opposite cause in regards to 3e, often likening 4e to a popular MORPG. This is a stance I do not take, though I have sympathy for those who claim that 4e has similarity to a board game. (Largely because I have seen a discussion on boardgames get flamed by a 4e player who thought that 4e was being insulted... the discussion in question was about Warhammer Quest, Hero Quest, Dungeon, and the Ravenloft boardgame.... You know, the actual boardgame? There are folks who are more tempted by the boardgames than the actual RPG. )

I do realize that there are reasons why 4e is focused so tightly on conflict resolution - what many consider to be the 'fun' part of the game. (Here I blame the '20 minutes of fun' quote.)

There are others who have interests that diverge from that line of thought, saying that they are wrong is like saying that folks who like vanilla more than pistachio are wrong. (While of course we all realize that chocolate is the supreme ice cream achievement!)

The Auld Grump

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I never did any such thing. You're reading too much into my post.

Okay, I am willing to accept that as a possibility.

But I am still right about the ice cream

The Auld Grump