Mearls: Abilities as the core?

[JamesonCourage]

Well, what did you mean by "4e's step towards gamist play"?

I offered two readings - "gamism" in the Forge sense, which D&D - except for 2nd ed - has always been oriented towards - and "gamism" in the sense of "ignoring the fiction". Apparently you didn't mean either of those things.

And asking me what I mean is exceptionally different from assuming what I mean. I'm not going to argue with you on this, or anything else, though.

It's none of my business what anyone else's preferences are. But on a messageboard about roleplaying, if someone posts and tells me that the game I happen to prefer playing at present isn't an RPG, I think it's within the legitimate bounds of discussion to explain why I disagree.

I believe that you don't like 4e. I don't like 3E. And I loathe 2nd ed AD&D. I have a soft spot for Runequest, but could never play it seriously, because it doesn't support the sort of play I enjoy. Classic Traveller likewise.

These are all statements of feeling. But describing 4e as taking a step towards gamist play looks to me like something else. It looks like a description of the sort of play that 4e supports, and presumably, then, that 4e players engage in. And I'm curious as to what you had in mind.

Maybe you meant "not tending to support immersion, in the sense of the player and the PC having their decision-making experience mereged"? If so, that is true (I think obviously true) of 4e. But there are clearer ways to express that than by saying "it's a boardgame" or "it's not an RPG". Those are obviously inflammatory.

Those are inflammatory statements. You're right. And like I said, if this entire complaint is "some people aren't reasonable" then I agree. However, it seems very one-sided. There are multiple posters on both sides of this issue that make inflammatory statements, and instead of seeing people post "both sides do it" I get "well, that side makes inflammatory statements!"

I mean, some people other than myself have said that both sides engage in it. And intellectually, we both know that they do. So, saying "some people say this about X" is a very poor statement, in my opinion, as it seems like you're trying to color all detractors with that argument.

If that's not the case, as I suspect it isn't, then I don't see why you need to single out one side. I know you said that you see more "4e isn't an RPG" than "3e isn't an RPG." I agree. I see more "3e is for powergamers" than "4e is for powergamers."

Both can be experienced. Neither are objectively true to the player base as a whole. I don't understand why it's "some people say this about 4e" rather than "there are some unreasonable people on both sides."

That seems, to me, to be a much more reasonable statement. One that is much less tinted with bias, to be sure. But, again, telling either side that their feelings are invalid, even if it's about something inflammatory, isn't going to change it.

The best you can do is, like I said, say "my mileage has differed." If someone makes an incorrect statement, it's much more effective to ask where they got their information, rather than to say, "no, you're incorrect." Because, really, if they don't like the game, then them mischaracterizing it in a poor light is a statement on their personal character. You calling them out on making inaccurate statements isn't going to change how they feel.

Some people are unreasonable. I can think of posters who are anti-4e and who make inflammatory statements. I can think of posters who are anti-3e and make inflammatory statements. I don't think these statements paint them in a good light. And, though many agree with their conclusion, far fewer probably agree with the passion of their position.

There are unreasonable people. Why it's selective on this issue, at the moment, is something I don't understand.

As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I don't see why you need to single out one side.

More or less for the reasons that SteveC gave upthread - that I want to talk about roleplaying (I'm posting on an RPG site, after all), including talking about actual play experiences, rules experiences etc that I have with my game, and get frustrated by the seemingly constant need to explain and/or justify my chosen ruleset - especially in light of the apparent ignorance of many of its critics of the games that have influenced it.

If 3E posters find that their discussions of their gaming and actual play experiences are getting similarly disrupted, then I have some sympathy for them. I personally don't notice so much evidence of this, but then this is the sort of thing where the interests of the observer might be expected to influence the observations.

To put much the same point a slightly different way - every time I open General there are one or more new threads about (i) why 4e sucks (see the current Dissociated Mechanics thread) or (ii) why 4e is about to/needs to be replaced by 5e or (iii) some combination of or variation on the above.

It's been a while since I've seen General peppered with threads about why we're well rid of 3E, and if only Pathfinder would be next on the block! Again, maybe they're there and I'm just less sensitive to them.

To put much the same point yet a different way - I've never seen anyone on these boards say that 3E is not a game in which serious roleplaying can take place, and is in fact a vehicle only for shallow play. Yet things of this sort are repeatedly said about or implied of 4e (often in, but not confined to, threads of type (i), (ii) and (iii) above).

It irritates me. And it seems to me unnecessary. We all know 4e has metagame mechanics. It's just about the first thing any thinking person will notice upon reading the rules. It's why I play it. It's why some people don't like it. But do we need thread after thread with people banging on about how metagame mechanices are the death of roleplaying?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

More or less for the reasons that SteveC gave upthread - that I want to talk about roleplaying (I'm posting on an RPG site, after all), including talking about actual play experiences, rules experiences etc that I have with my game, and get frustrated by the seemingly constant need to explain and/or justify my chosen ruleset - especially in light of the apparent ignorance of many of its critics of the games that have influenced it.

If 3E posters find that their discussions of their gaming and actual play experiences are getting similarly disrupted, then I have some sympathy for them. I personally don't notice so much evidence of this, but then this is the sort of thing where the interests of the observer might be expected to influence the observations.

To put much the same point a slightly different way - every time I open General there are one or more new threads about (i) why 4e sucks (see the current Dissociated Mechanics thread) or (ii) why 4e is about to/needs to be replaced by 5e or (iii) some combination of or variation on the above.

It's been a while since I've seen General peppered with threads about why we're well rid of 3E, and if only Pathfinder would be next on the block! Again, maybe they're there and I'm just less sensitive to them.

To put much the same point yet a different way - I've never seen anyone on these boards say that 3E is not a game in which serious roleplaying can take place, and is in fact a vehicle only for shallow play. Yet things of this sort are repeatedly said about or implied of 4e (often in, but not confined to, threads of type (i), (ii) and (iii) above).

It irritates me. And it seems to me unnecessary. We all know 4e has metagame mechanics. It's just about the first thing any thinking person will notice upon reading the rules. It's why I play it. It's why some people don't like it. But do we need thread after thread with people banging on about how metagame mechanices are the death of roleplaying?

Exactly. I mean I haven't gone around to 3.x/PF themed discussion threads to see exactly how often they get bombed by fans of 4e telling people how flawed 4e is or how flawed their experience with it or opinion of it was. However I am going to say that my general impression is this doesn't happen much.

Yet EVERY SINGLE TIME 4e is discussed in almost any way shape or form, even on the 4e specific forum, the same pattern of comments appears. It just about never fails. What is the compulsion which is operating here? I don't get it.

I mean the topic of this thread was Mike Mearls' post about ability scores and how they could be used in a game, yet again it devolved into how much 4e skills suck and etc. Some of it started out relevant to the topic, but I think anyone reviewing the thread is going to see what I'm getting at here.

 

[JamesonCourage]

More or less for the reasons that SteveC gave upthread - that I want to talk about roleplaying (I'm posting on an RPG site, after all), including talking about actual play experiences, rules experiences etc that I have with my game, and get frustrated by the seemingly constant need to explain and/or justify my chosen ruleset - especially in light of the apparent ignorance of many of its critics of the games that have influenced it.

If 3E posters find that their discussions of their gaming and actual play experiences are getting similarly disrupted, then I have some sympathy for them. I personally don't notice so much evidence of this, but then this is the sort of thing where the interests of the observer might be expected to influence the observations.

To put much the same point a slightly different way - every time I open General there are one or more new threads about (i) why 4e sucks (see the current Dissociated Mechanics thread) or (ii) why 4e is about to/needs to be replaced by 5e or (iii) some combination of or variation on the above.

It's been a while since I've seen General peppered with threads about why we're well rid of 3E, and if only Pathfinder would be next on the block! Again, maybe they're there and I'm just less sensitive to them.

To put much the same point yet a different way - I've never seen anyone on these boards say that 3E is not a game in which serious roleplaying can take place, and is in fact a vehicle only for shallow play. Yet things of this sort are repeatedly said about or implied of 4e (often in, but not confined to, threads of type (i), (ii) and (iii) above).

It irritates me. And it seems to me unnecessary. We all know 4e has metagame mechanics. It's just about the first thing any thinking person will notice upon reading the rules. It's why I play it. It's why some people don't like it. But do we need thread after thread with people banging on about how metagame mechanices are the death of roleplaying?

Let me take this last sentence, and apply your own opening sentence to it:

But do we need thread after thread with people banging on about how metagame mechanices are the death of roleplaying?

that I want to talk about roleplaying (I'm posting on an RPG site, after all), including talking about actual play experiences, rules experiences etc

When the latest edition of the biggest game in the market has embraced a style (metagame mechanics) that rubs much of the previous the wrong way, then I don't honestly see a problem with discussing it. That topic is just people who "want to talk about roleplaying ([and are] posting on an RPG site, after all), including talking about actual play experiences, rules experiences etc."

Giving emotional responses because some people make irrational statements does not contribute to a productive discussion. It just doesn't.

And, you may not notice others bash 3e as often, but it most certainly does happen. Look at catastrophic in other threads, or quotes remaining from Nineball (I can't comment more on this, as it's against the forum rules, as far as I know). They're very inflammatory, and they tell people "objectively" what "innovation" must be, and that nobody could "RP wizards without breaking the game." These are not uncommon statements. Nor are swipes against 4e with posters like Jimlock or the like.

I know that it bugs you on a personal level, but, again, I don't see any more of a problem with "meta mechanics detract from RPing" than "powergaming detracts from RPing." I think both can be true at tables, and both are false as blanket objective statements.

People will talk about stuff with which you don't agree. People will make irrational or erroneous or malicious statements. I don't think it's one-sided, nor do I think it's particularly good for a discussion to throw out one-sided complaints when it can be applied to both sides. This is just going to either form or cement two different sides in a thread, and then we likely have an argument, not a discussion.

To me, that's unnecessary. Just like the irrational blanket statements of "objective" fact that both sides spout forth. Just my two cents.

As always, play what you like

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Let me take this last sentence, and apply your own opening sentence to it:


When the latest edition of the biggest game in the market has embraced a style (metagame mechanics) that rubs much of the previous the wrong way, then I don't honestly see a problem with discussing it. That topic is just people who "want to talk about roleplaying ([and are] posting on an RPG site, after all), including talking about actual play experiences, rules experiences etc."

Giving emotional responses because some people make irrational statements does not contribute to a productive discussion. It just doesn't.

And, you may not notice others bash 3e as often, but it most certainly does happen. Look at catastrophic in other threads, or quotes remaining from Nineball (I can't comment more on this, as it's against the forum rules, as far as I know). They're very inflammatory, and they tell people "objectively" what "innovation" must be, and that nobody could "RP wizards without breaking the game." These are not uncommon statements. Nor are swipes against 4e with posters like Jimlock or the like.

I know that it bugs you on a personal level, but, again, I don't see any more of a problem with "meta mechanics detract from RPing" than "powergaming detracts from RPing." I think both can be true at tables, and both are false as blanket objective statements.

People will talk about stuff with which you don't agree. People will make irrational or erroneous or malicious statements. I don't think it's one-sided, nor do I think it's particularly good for a discussion to throw out one-sided complaints when it can be applied to both sides. This is just going to either form or cement two different sides in a thread, and then we likely have an argument, not a discussion.

To me, that's unnecessary. Just like the irrational blanket statements of "objective" fact that both sides spout forth. Just my two cents.

As always, play what you like

Agreed, but again it was essentially a thread discussing Mike's thoughts on what is presumably 4e. Again, is practically every thread discussing some element of 3.5 or PF inevitably bombed with the same opinions? I'm skeptical. I know I don't even look at them let alone post in them. I'll admit, this thread isn't entirely a thread about 4e and it is certainly relevant to discuss various aspects of game design and contrast different design decisions and their ramifications in the light of what Mike is saying. So yeah, the whole topic wasn't perhaps totally out of place here, but it just seems like someone always has to chum the waters. lol.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Agreed, but again it was essentially a thread discussing Mike's thoughts on what is presumably 4e. Again, is practically every thread discussing some element of 3.5 or PF inevitably bombed with the same opinions? I'm skeptical. I know I don't even look at them let alone post in them. I'll admit, this thread isn't entirely a thread about 4e and it is certainly relevant to discuss various aspects of game design and contrast different design decisions and their ramifications in the light of what Mike is saying. So yeah, the whole topic wasn't perhaps totally out of place here, but it just seems like someone always has to chum the waters. lol.

There are posters who mainly post in the D&D Legacy section that caused me to eventually migrate mainly over to this forum. I imagine there will be posts in every forum that end up with people chipping in something that is irrational. I see those types of posts commonly out of this site, and occasionally within this site. That's actually one of the reasons I prefer this site: it's much, much less prevalent here, and the mods do a fantastic job of keeping things civil.

Yeah, there are irrational posters who attack 4e. They shouldn't do that. What more is there to say about it, really?

As always, play what you like

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sure, but as pemerton said, there are certain 'issues' and certain statements that come up again and again, and no number of repetitions of "no, fighters can't teleport" or "if you want to be able to play the lute you can just put it in your background, it doesn't change anything mechanically about your character" ever sinks in.

It doesn't sink in because those points ignore the real issues.

"Fighters Can't Teleport" ignores the real issue at the heart of the "4e powers are too magical for warriors!" That's just contradiction, naysaying. Understanding why someone feels the way they do is hard to do when you automatically shut them down as wrong. They might be wrong, but they probably have a reason for thinking that way, anyway. A reason like "some fighter powers do pretty damn magical things when you view power use as cause and effect, and I don't like not viewing it in that way."

"Just Put It In Your Background" ignores the real issue at the heart of "I can't play the lute in 4e!", too. It's dismissive. Again, they might be incorrect, but there's a reason they think this way. A reason like "4e doesn't involve very satisfying noncombat rules."

Both of those latter parts are fairly valid criticisms of 4e. 4e does have effect-based power design, and is pretty shoddy on rules that aren't combat. The flailing "Superhero fighters!" and "Can't have noncombat abilities!" are just out-sized reactions about that fact.

If you're going to enter a discussion with someone, you should entertain the idea that, even if they're a little off-base now, that they are a reasonable person, and try and understand how a reasonable person could come to believe it.

"You're Wrong!" isn't very constructive conversation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It doesn't sink in because those points ignore the real issues.

"Fighters Can't Teleport" ignores the real issue at the heart of the "4e powers are too magical for warriors!" That's just contradiction, naysaying. Understanding why someone feels the way they do is hard to do when you automatically shut them down as wrong. They might be wrong, but they probably have a reason for thinking that way, anyway. A reason like "some fighter powers do pretty damn magical things when you view power use as cause and effect, and I don't like not viewing it in that way."

"Just Put It In Your Background" ignores the real issue at the heart of "I can't play the lute in 4e!", too. It's dismissive. Again, they might be incorrect, but there's a reason they think this way. A reason like "4e doesn't involve very satisfying noncombat rules."

Both of those latter parts are fairly valid criticisms of 4e. 4e does have effect-based power design, and is pretty shoddy on rules that aren't combat. The flailing "Superhero fighters!" and "Can't have noncombat abilities!" are just out-sized reactions about that fact.

If you're going to enter a discussion with someone, you should entertain the idea that, even if they're a little off-base now, that they are a reasonable person, and try and understand how a reasonable person could come to believe it.

"You're Wrong!" isn't very constructive conversation.

I am not saying anyone is WRONG. But look at what you've said, "pretty shoddy" ain't exactly either accurate in my opinion nor is it constructive. Actually I think the way these things were designed in 4e was a very conscious calculated game design decision, elegant, and effective. I don't demand that everyone like it, but really at least people can try to understand the underlying game design issues which were being addressed. Maybe not everyone is going to get it, but no that kind of thing isn't 'reasonable'. I'm perfectly happy to discuss what I see as the theory behind the design, but there's no answering "it's just crap!" It says nothing profound. It may express one person's feelings on the particular subject but what is the point of posting those kinds of statements? Does it win someone some kind of points? lol. Yes, I get it, there are always some in every batch... Again, it is perfectly fine to discuss it, but can we establish a few conversational skills? Can this be educational. Perhaps someone will at least gain some understanding of the why's and wherefores. I don't expect a whole lot of changing of people's taste in games, but at least understand what you're criticizing. It can only bring greater insight.

 

[Balesir]

Someone thinks 4e is a board game? Well, maybe it's because they don't like playing with minis and a grid, which 4e is pretty dependent on. Maybe a D&D that didn't rely on that so much would be better.

Someone thinks 4e is an MMO? Well, maybe it's because they don't think 4e offers much choice, since so many powers are all about damage. Maybe a D&D that diversified the threats a party faced would be better.

Someone thinks 4e is too complex or too simple? Well, maybe it's because it isn't the right complexity in the right places for everyone. Maybe a D&D that let you choose your level of complexity would be better (mearls's posts often hit this point!).

Someone thinks 4e is "not D&D"? Well, maybe it's because 4e ditched a lot of the story elements of earlier editions. Maybe a D&D that embraced the tropes that people love would be better.

Someone thinks 4e is a superhero game? Well, maybe it's because 4e characters always feel above and beyond the turnip farmers and town guards that start adventures in fiction. Maybe a D&D that embraced that tier of play more would be better.

Sure, and maybe a D&D that was none of those things would be better. But let's deconstruct this a little, because it's interesting.

The first element of each of the initial statements here would be "I don't like X" (where "X" = 'playing with minis and a grid', 'having all (attack) power choices do damage', 'playing a complicated/simple game', 'games that don't include classic story elements' and 'games where the PCs don't start out very weak'). Thus far we have a very reasonable and neutral expression of preference.

Next up would naturally be "I would prefer to play a game that doesn't include X". Again, a perfectly natural and non-contraversial statement of preference.

At this stage, though, I come to a dislocation. There seems also to be an assumed link; that the game played has to be "D&D" and that, therefore, D&D should change/be revised/be reissued to fit with this.

This I don't understand.

OK, the people saying this would like a game that doesn't involve the various "X's" - fair enough, there are plenty around, take your pick. But to then take this other game, that several folk are happily playing as it is, and say "that should be changed into the game I want to play" just gives me a "WTF?!?" moment.

As always, play what you like

Absolutely - I couldn't agree more. Just don't point at stuff other people are playing and say "that's wrong, it should be changed to be more like what I want to play!".

Edit: I just realised that the last part, here, could be taken to imply that I'm saying that you, JamesonCourage, are saying this; to be clear, you personally are not, so far as I am aware. I picked out the tag line from you because I agree with it, in the context of the rest of my post.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I mean, some people other than myself have said that both sides engage in it. And intellectually, we both know that they do. So, saying "some people say this about X" is a very poor statement, in my opinion, as it seems like you're trying to color all detractors with that argument.

If that's not the case, as I suspect it isn't, then I don't see why you need to single out one side. I know you said that you see more "4e isn't an RPG" than "3e isn't an RPG." I agree. I see more "3e is for powergamers" than "4e is for powergamers."

Both can be experienced. Neither are objectively true to the player base as a whole. I don't understand why it's "some people say this about 4e" rather than "there are some unreasonable people on both sides."

That seems, to me, to be a much more reasonable statement. One that is much less tinted with bias, to be sure. But, again, telling either side that their feelings are invalid, even if it's about something inflammatory, isn't going to change it.

There are some unreasonable people on both side, but typically, they are not unreasonable in the same way--on this issue. (You get outliers, of course, and everyone has off days, even normally reasonable people.) This is one reaons why, I suspect, both sets of unreasonable people can feel oppressed by even-handed moderation. From their perspective, the "other side" really is getting away with something that they themselves aren't doing. Personally, I don't care. It would suit me fine if moderation was heavily in favor of shutting down 4E proponent excesses and more lax on other excesses. I think that some of the best ways to make my points is sometimes to simply let the guy whom I think in error to keep talking! Obviously, then, I'm not in favor of people agreeing with me but digging a deep hole under my position. Naturally, moderators, wanting to be fair, have to be more judicious about this than what I would enjoy.

But to the larger point, there have been several examples, with a couple of new ones lately, digging such holes, and they have fallen directly into the trap of arguing feelings. It is a lot easier to argue against them, than the more accurate objection: You can have whatever feelings you want, but the moment you start generalizing to other peoples' experiences and design and any number of things, there had better be more of a basis than your feelings. Calling people on failure to have more of a basis is not claiming that your feelings are invalid. It is rather that your feelings are signs and indications of something, but not necessarily conclusive about any one thing in particular.

Shifting ground between feelings and logic is partly natural. One really ought to be consulting both, to make sure they are at least somewhat in sync. Missing the transition is a common and expected error. Doubling down on it is not so common, and thus should be given a lot less slack.

Joe Player is angry. Joe Player doesn't like new version of his favorite game because it did X. X makes Joe Player angry. X probably makes other people angry. X makes all "right playing" people angry. If you aren't angry about X, well, then we can't call you out on a message board like this directly, but boy, we can imply it constantly.

Write it out like that, and any honest reader over the age of 12 can spot at least some of the flaws. Some 12 year olds might spot the flaws, reject the "conclusion", but then take the unwarranted step of rejecting that Joe is angry. Or that he has a reason. Or that even he knows the reason. (That last one gets tricky, for various degrees of "knows".)

One of the characteristic, unreasonable debating tactics deployed by some of the more virulent 4E bashers has been to switch freely between emotive feeling and argument, and then whichever way they are answered, to switch to the other. As to why, I could make several guesses, but I don't think that would be wise, except to say that many reasons why are a lot more benign than one would first think. And from the receiving end, it really doesn't matter why. If it happens enough, you feel rather annoyed. See, we have feelings too.

I will say that Raven Crowking is an excellent example of someone who is not doing this, but is engaged in a lot of the same arguments, from a similar perspective, of people that are. This is what makes his posts so valuable to me. I'm challenged by his posts, rather than fatigued by them.