"Gamism," The Forge, and the Elephant in the Room

[innerdude]

I read this recently on another forum and it seemed vaguely appropriate:

(snip)

And that's just a discussion on what 'roleplaying' means, let alone more precise terminology like 'creative agenda' or specific techniques or elements of design which promote a certain style of play.

You're absolutely right, chao, and as a guy with an English degree, believe me I recognize the ridiculousness that often arises from the vagueries of semantics.

But in this context, I think I am trying to push a definition of "roleplaying" a little bit more outside the boundaries of Ron Edwards' view of "Gamism." To me, Gamism in RPGs only works if there's an accepted social contract between the players that there's "something else" there other than Gamism. Gamism can co-exist in an RPG with other elements; it can't simply be what the RPG is "about."

 

[Crazy Jerome]

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that as a genre, RPGs provide a much more unique venue for Simulationist and Narrativist explorations than they do for Gamism.

I disagree with this. If oral story-telling, improvisational acting, free-form pretend, creative writing (and reading of others creative writing) didn't exist, I might agree with it. But they do. Different cross-sections of these are to RPGs for simulationist and narrativist tendencies, as various games are to RPGs for gamist tendencies. If anything, the unique thing about RPGs is the way they can synthesize all three into one activity.

I'll grant that in the Barker or Tolkien sense of "imagining a living world" and then sharing that with other people, RPGs are perhaps a more accessible means than what was available before. People aren't likely to have great fun reading your novel and discussing it, if you only dabble in writing it. Whereas, you can have fun with board games and the like at whatever effort you choose to put forward.

 

[innerdude]

I disagree with this. If oral story-telling, improvisational acting, free-form pretend, creative writing (and reading of others creative writing) didn't exist, I might agree with it. But they do. Different cross-sections of these are to RPGs for simulationist and narrativist tendencies, as various games are to RPGs for gamist tendencies. If anything, the unique thing about RPGs is the way they can synthesize all three into one activity.

A reasonable point, but the other activities you mentioned (other than free-form "pretend") don't promote the same levels of interactivity like RPGs do. Or, more appropriately, RPGs create a more equally shared venue of interactivity than the others do.

Now, in some regard, this is where the heart of Gamism comes in--because how do you have a roleplaying "game" without rules? Otherwise it becomes little more than free-form "pretend."

Gamism, as Ron Edwards seems to define it, is derived from a player's need to engage (and win) in competition through their performance. Thus, "Step On Up!" happens when a challenge is presented within context of a situation and rules constraints. But the rules constraints exist in the first place as a means to create a scale of balance for player social interactivity ("My pretending is just as important as your pretending"). If those rules also provide a secondary function (Gamism), it's still secondary to the original purpose for the rules existing in the first place. And if the players engaging in Gamist play aren't interested in acceding to the existing social premise of an RPG--"We all want to pretend together"--then they're not really playing an RPG at all, but playing a glorified war game, a tactical strategy game, or some other kind of "game" that does not fall under the genre of "roleplaying game."

Are Gamists doing anything "wrong" if they do this? Nope, not at all. They're having fun. But once again, as I said in my OP: Pure Gamism, as defined by Ron Edwards, is antithetical to the social contract of roleplaying games.

The rules of an RPG exist to build upon the "pretending." The social impetus ("I want to pretend I'm an elf today") always precedes and supersedes the need to create rules for it. Rules only exist to structure, balance, and adjudicate what happens within the "free-form pretending." And it is the act, or impetus to "pretend" that separates RPGs from other Gamist analogs in the first place.

You can, if you want, make a "game within the game" that pushes Gamist buttons and twists its dials. But Gamism only exists in RPGs because rules are necessary to transform "free form pretending" into a more egalitarian social experience.

The rules don't come first. A desire to engage in a unique social engagement comes first.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Now, in some regard, this is where the heart of Gamism comes in--because how do you have a roleplaying "game" without rules? Otherwise it becomes little more than free-form "pretend."

The rules don't come first. A desire to engage in a unique social engagement comes first.

You role-play to an audience: the Game Master, who is also the rules. Both conditions satisfied.

 

[pemerton]

Umbran, thanks for the thoughtful responses.

I'll put it this way: That's what they want you to think. For a variety of reasons, many forces in the world put a lot of energy into making us focus on our differences, rather than on our similarities.

<snip>

I personally, and in my moderator capacity, find edition warring, what I call "dichotomy warring" (like new school/old school), or any other heated arguments so galling. They drive wedges between people based on small differences, ignoring what is shared.

<snip>

Now, in politics, people drive these wedges and amplify differences and claim that compromise is impossible as power plays.

Compromise in politics is a complex issue. I'm in print arguing that contemporary political philosophy suffers from a lack of a good theory of compromise (and a part of my doctoral work was an attempt to correct that deficiency). But the very same paper argues that, absent a situation of proper compromise, we are in a Hobbesian war of all and against all.

I don't have as well-developed views on the nature of aesthetic distinction and disagreement, but I do have some views. For example, both someone who loves Graham Greene, and someone who loves Stephen King, might describe themselves as "readers of novels". And to someone who is not at all bookishly inclined, the two readers might look pretty similar. And there's no doubt that the two readers have some interests in common (they have an interest in liberal censorship laws, a low price for paper and ink, etc). But put the two of them together in a book club, and it's likely that hilarity (or conflict) will ensue.

And it needn't be two people with diffreing tastes. It can be one person with a range of tastes. Over the holidays my kids went away for a week and a half with grandparents, so my partner and I got to see three movies: Melancholia, This Skin I Live In (? anyway, the latest Almodovar film) and the new Sherlock Holmes film. Needless to say, if I'm in the mood for Melancholia, and I accidentally find myself watching Sherlock Holmes, or Almodovar for that matter, I'm going to get a shock. To the extent that these films have artistic merit, they are on very different dimensions.

I see GNS as bringing this sort of analysis of differene in aesthetic experience, and the techniques and structures that produce it, to RPGs.

The issues arise when you try to treat individuals as if membership in a group is the most important thing about them.

Statistics about people in aggregate are an information source. Treating a person as if they are a statistic is stereotyping.

I don't believe that this is what Edwards, The Forge, or GNS analysis does.

The whole point of identifying the agendas, and focusing a game on a particular agenda, is to produce a game that will be enjoyed by folks who like that agenda, no?

Yes, but Edwards (and The Forge generally) advocates playing a wide variety of games, to see different techniques in play and enjoy what the different agendas have to offer. The focus is not monistic or homogenising.

That, if nothing else, sometimes leaves me wondering why so many folks like his work - the guy's not a very clear writer, honestly.

As above, I can only speak for myself. I like his work because he tries to bring the analytical and interpretive methods with which I am familiar, and which I regard as powerful techniques for making sense of cultural and social phenomena, to bear on one of my favourite passtimes. It's the closest thing to serious criticism that I'm aware of in the domain of RPGs.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

True, but all data consists of anecdotes, in the end.[/qupte]

As a physicist, I disagree with that statement, but don't feel it'll be valuable to this discussion to go down that rathole at this time.

I'm not a scientist, and I'm not really a philosopher of science either, but for what it's worth on this I tend to lean Umbran's way. But not all inquiry is scientific inquiry, in the sense of relying upon data in the scientist's sense.

"Extensive" is a vague term. There are very few, if any, people with sufficiently broad gaming experience to claim to have a representative sample. I've seen no sign that Edwards' personal experience was so extensive, or that he took any pains to not self-select or remove bias from his observations, such that we can call it anything other than his personal anecdotal experience.

Sadly, no-one is likely equipped or funded sufficiently to really collect the data needed for this or any similar study. As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] says, it is instances of actual play that need to be counted and studied - and nothing so far attempted in the way of "surveys" even approaches that.

Historians work by reading the texts produced in a period, reading what archaeologists have learned about the production and distribution of material artefacts in the period, etc. And from that they draw the best inferences they can. Interpretive sociologists work in a similar fashion to historians (although from the point of view of historians, are prone to engage in rash generalisations). In both cases, the solution to bias, and projection, is to read more and to learn more, to shake off preconceptions and the burdens of one's own cultural location.

Edwards plays games, talks to gamers, reads game texts, and tries to interpret those texts and those experiences on their own terms, instead of via projection. To see what I mean, read the essay on Fantasy Heartbreakers. Read his threads on the various forms of authority, and the possible roles of the GM.

It's true, as Balesir points out, that no academic institution has funded, or is going to fund, the sort of research into RPGs that academic scholars are funded to undertake into other cultural phenomena. Edwards's is, in that sense, an amateur doing the work on his own time. But for fidelity to play experience, and a serious attempt to understand the experiences of others before projecting his own preconceptions and preferences onto them, I think he is a serious and generous interpreter.

In contrast, look at how quickly, on the current "Class Balance" thread in New Horizons, people accuse the OP of engaging in Oberoni Fallacy - whereas in fact what the OP is doing is calling for GM power to be a significant component in action resolution, with the mechanics of action resolution playing a somewhat subordinate role. And on the same thread, how quickly some people talk about "railroading" when a 4e player talks about the merits of that system for robust scene framing.

I don't think familiarity with Edwards' work breed edition warring. I tend to think that a lack of familiarity with different approaches to play, and a lack of understanding of the range of techniques and systems that support those different approaches, produces edition warring.

Which is part of why I say that in this, Edwards was wrong, and that the model does not match reality well in this regard. That is a possibility, you know - that his model isn't very close to reality.

Whereas I find that half or more of the debates on this thread about the differences between 3E and 4e, and the role and desirability of various mechanics, are simply rehashing in the particular context of D&D the analytical distinctions already drawn in Edwards' essays. In particular, they are debates centred around the system features called out in the four dot points in the passage I quoted upthread.

 

[Anselyn]

I think you are thinking of rewards distribution, as a consequence of the outcome of overcoming the adversary. Wolf eats deer, caveman slogs a second wife, and so on.

But as far as the effect of competition on performance, that trends to increase the performance all around.

One style of "doing better" is to undercut the opponent. Another style is simply to "do better".

There has to be care in measuring performance. Say, shooting basketball, scoring a hoop is success: Jumping higher (or faster, or more accurately) is performance.

TomB

No. I was thinking more like - grey squirrels eat a wide range of food and breed fast. Red squirrels find their food eaten by an increasing number of adaptable greys and the population decreases. This is two populations in competition - one losing a struggle in absolute terms. The red squirrels have not thrived due to the pressure of the greys.

Or,

Mode competition at the onset of lasing in a laser. The mode that starts with slightly greater gain increases intensity more quickly, depletes the inverted carrier population and so increases its intensity and reduces the available carriers which could partake in stimulated emission and increase the intensity in another mode. Ultimately you get a high side mode suppression ratio in which the initial emission of the side modes has been quenched and one mode dominates as stimulated emission suppresses the initial spontaneous carrier recombination,

Competition and performance have valid definitions and use outside economics.

 

[pemerton]

the rules constraints exist in the first place as a means to create a scale of balance for player social interactivity ("My pretending is just as important as your pretending").

I tend to think this is right - and Vincent Baker pushes this line strongly - but it is certainly controversial on these boards.

If those rules also provide a secondary function (Gamism), it's still secondary to the original purpose for the rules existing in the first place. And if the players engaging in Gamist play aren't interested in acceding to the existing social premise of an RPG--"We all want to pretend together"--then they're not really playing an RPG at all, but playing a glorified war game, a tactical strategy game, or some other kind of "game" that does not fall under the genre of "roleplaying game."

But I think this is wrong. Both gamist and narrativist play involve exploration of a shared imaginary space - ie "pretending together" - but unlike simulationist play, exploration is not the main thing. It's a preliminary to something else.

Now you describe that something else as secondary, but what is your basis for that? For example, suppose the rules of the game mean that, (i) if I have narrated that some fictional character is dead, then I also get to narrate that I am looting my body. And suppose the rules of the game also permit me (ii) to narrate that some fictinal character is dead, as a consequence of narrating that I have struck them with a honking big weapon, and (iii) to narrate the spending of my loot so as to increse my ability to buy honking big weapons. We don't need to add very much to (i), (ii) and (iii) to get the basics of Tunnels & Trolls play, or some versions of classic D&D play. I think the incipient gamism is obvious - players can "win" by narrating successful attacks, looting corposes, buying bigger weapons, rinse and repeat. And there is nothing in that gamism that is at odds with playing "let's pretend". It's just pretending to a purpose.

My own view on what distinguishes this gamist RPGing from a wargame or a boardgame is that fictional positioning is central. For example, to be allowed to get to stage (ii) - narrating a strike with my honking big weapon - I am going to first have to establish in the shared imaginary space, that I am nearby my intended target. To do this, I'm going to have to first establish, in the SIS, how I get there. And so on. In classic D&D or T&T play, this is where the dungeon exploration comes in - and fictional positioning is central to it.

Conversely, it is the failure of 4e to adequately articulate how fictional positioning matters in that game's action resolution (although in my view it does matter in all sorts of ways) that leads to 4e being described by many as a mere boardgame or skirmish game.

 

[tomBitonti]

No. I was thinking more like - grey squirrels eat a wide range of food and breed fast. Red squirrels find their food eaten by an increasing number of adaptable greys and the population decreases. This is two populations in competition - one losing a struggle in absolute terms. The red squirrels have not thrived due to the pressure of the greys.

Or,

Mode competition at the onset of lasing in a laser. The mode that starts with slightly greater gain increases intensity more quickly, depletes the inverted carrier population and so increases its intensity and reduces the available carriers which could partake in stimulated emission and increase the intensity in another mode. Ultimately you get a high side mode suppression ratio in which the initial emission of the side modes has been quenched and one mode dominates as stimulated emission suppresses the initial spontaneous carrier recombination,

Competition and performance have valid definitions and use outside economics.

The second case is a technical usage. I'd rather not attempt to apply it here, as the meaning is a very specific shorthand for an underlying process subject to precise definitions. I don't that that sense of meaning is applicable in this case.

What matters is the meaning presented by the original text:

Competition is best understood as a productive add-on to Gamist play. Such play is fundamentally cooperative, but may include competition. That's not a contradiction: I'm using exactly the same logic as might be found at the poker and basketball games. You can't compete, socially, without an agreed-upon venue. If the cooperation's details are acceptable to everyone, then the competition within it can be quite fierce.

Role-playing texts never get this straight. For them, it's always either competition or cooperation, one-other, push-pull, and often nonsensical. . .

So what is all this competition business about? It concerns conflict of interest. If person A's performance is only maximized by driving down another's performance, then competition is present. In Gamist play, this is not required - but it is very often part of the picture. Competition gives both Step On Up and Challenge a whole new feel - a bite. . .

In that text, two ideas are brought together: Competition and Performance, with the statement, very specifically, and very strongly (from the use of only in only maximized):

If person A's performance is only maximized by driving down another's performance, then competition is present.

That is to say, the key issue is the stated relationship between competition and performance. In your first example, which uses the terminology in the sense as fits the original text, can you say that the performance of the red squirrels was definitely worse because of the competitive pressure of the grey squirrels? I see likely that the red squirrels, within their limited remaining lifetime, might have seen increases in performance. That the performance was ultimately inadequate for survival doesn't require that it worsened.

TomB

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that as a genre, RPGs provide a much more unique venue for Simulationist and Narrativist explorations than they do for Gamism.

I strongly disagree. To people who like Step on Up play, RPGs can challenge them in ways no boardgame can. That's a unique venue.

On the other hand to simulationists, the World of Warcraft is massive and consistent if not coherent. The World of Eve is ... something that can not be matched on the tabletop and is an incredible thing to explore. Even at the non-MMO level, the worlds of Mass Effect, the Witcher, Dragon Age, KOTOR, and Skyrim (to name the first few that spring to mind) provide a huge amount to explore - and far more given the time constraints than any DM could handle.

Given that simulationists have better alternatives, why not try to push them out too and leave yourself with just the narrativists?

Especially as an RPG is an RPG - there is nothing inherently simulationist about a Role Playing Game - but the very name itself says that they are (and always have been) gamist. D&D explicitely grew out of wargaming and as such is one of the most gamist strands of RPG.

I don't think most people sit down to play a pen-and-paper RPG simply because they want the challenge of creating the "awesomest character ever," and then "running around and pwning stuff with it."

To me that sounds more like narrativist desires. The gamists I know would most enjoy running around pwning stuff with a 6" knife, a long stick found lying on the ground, 50' of twine, a barrel full of rotten apples, the shards of a broken mirror, and four chickens. On the other hand, give them the ability to rewite reality with a click of their fingers and they will take it because it's the best tool available.

The power fantasy is IME a narrativist fantasy, not a gamist one. But when the narrativists demand the power, the gamists will push what can be done with whatever they are given right to the limit. Exalted is not intended to be a gamist game and it's not one real gamists favour. But let gamists loose on Exalted without an explicit social contract and things get ... scary.

A note to any offended simulationists or narrativists: I'm no more in favour of kicking you out than I am gamists. And that's the point.

Diablo can't create Narrativist or Simulationist challenges. But RPGs do.

Never played Diablo. But Eve creates vast amounts of Simulationist challenges.

As I stated in my original post, pure Gamism is inherently antithetical to the social contract of RPGs.

And here I'm going to emphatically disagree with you on two points.

1: You seem to assume there is one "social contract of RPGs". You can play two different RPGs with the same group of people and they will have different social contracts. PVP in D&D is one thing and would probably get you kicked out of most of my groups unless there'd been a long narrative arc leading into it (paladin vs cleric, each with ideals that demanded something different). PVP in Paranoia is ... encouraged. Which just demonstrates that when you talk about "The social contract of RPGs" you are talking about something that does not actually exist.

2: RPGs evolved from pure gamism. Especially D&D. Gygax and Arneson were both very, very, very gamist. And Arneson got the idea for D&D from Braunstein and really stepping on up with an approach that said "that which isn't banned is allowed". Tomb of Horrors is about as pure gamism as it gets. Are you trying to redact it from the hobby?

Gamism, as Ron Edwards seems to define it, is derived from a player's need to engage (and win) in competition through their performance.

Who are you competing against? Competing against each other is a bad thing at the table. But IME most gamists aren't competing against their fellow players. They are competing against the challenges thrown by the gameworld.

If those rules also provide a secondary function (Gamism), it's still secondary to the original purpose for the rules existing in the first place.

The original purpose of the rules existing was for tabletop wargaming. This is historical fact. You seek to throw the entire history of D&D out of the game.

Are Gamists doing anything "wrong" if they do this? Nope, not at all. They're having fun. But once again, as I said in my OP: Pure Gamism, as defined by Ron Edwards, is antithetical to the social contract of roleplaying games.

Once again you have invented out of thin air "the social contract of roleplaying games" when there isn't one. I'll put up with behaviour in Fiasco that I'd potentially end a friendship over in a long running campaign game.

You can, if you want, make a "game within the game" that pushes Gamist buttons and twists its dials. But Gamism only exists in RPGs because rules are necessary to transform "free form pretending" into a more egalitarian social experience.

Gamism exists in RPGs because humans like challenges. Gamism exists in D&D because the historical roots and ongoing patterns of D&D are gamist. I know you don't like gamism. In which case I have to ask something: Why are you posting on a board dedicated to a game that is based on a hacked tabletop wargame centered around Step On Up play simply in order to tell people who like this style that they are having BadWrongFun?

 

[Balesir]

I think that depends upon your interpretation of some of Edwards' wording.

<snip>

But then, we've already identified that his language use was not actually all that great, so that's not surprising. That, if nothing else, sometimes leaves me wondering why so many folks like his work - the guy's not a very clear writer, honestly.

I think of him as a thinker, rather than a writer, honestly. All that I have read of his has been a "work in progress" and development of thoughts and theories arther than a finished view that stands without modification. I therefore look at what he is saying in sum, rather than analysing specific wording of writings that have almost certainly been superceded in his thought anyway.

This (obviously) doesn't make for an easy "textbook" style lesson, but I have found GNS useful enough to me personally to put up with that.

And I think there's also an argument that if categorization is not explicit, it is implicit. There is no such thing as an agenda without a person that has it. If a good system focuses on one agenda, and that system is played for extended time, or with some preference by a given player, the player probably enjoys that agenda, no? The whole point of identifying the agendas, and focusing a game on a particular agenda, is to produce a game that will be enjoyed by folks who like that agenda, no? Or, is there some objective, non-player-preference-focused reason to stick to one agenda of which I'm not aware?

No, the idea is to make games supporting a particular agenda for those who enjoy playing to pursue that agenda - or that is my understanding. Where I think the hangup comes is with the idea that if you like pursuing agenda "A" you will therefore not like pursuing agendas "B" or "C", because you are somehow wedded inexorably to agenda "A". This goes completely against what I understand GNS to be saying. Yes, the agendas "G", "N" and "S" are things you may like or have no attraction towards, but thay are not exclusive and they in no way "define" you as a roleplayer.

I go back to the food analogy, because I think it's a fairly apt one; if I make a dish to serve to friends, I try to make it a tasty dish that they will enjoy. To that end, I might include ingredients I know they like, but I would be foolish to chuck in every ingredient I know they like, because some ingredients just don't go together.

At the same time, I find it fun and useful to taste and try different foods and thus widen my experience and tastes. There are those who say "if it's not roast meat and vegetables I don't like it" - and they may even have tried all other varieties of foodstuff and found they disliked them, but more likely they are just unwilling to accept and try out other foods (perhaps because they might find they actually like them - the horror!).

What GNS did for me, then, was show me that there are more ways to roleplay that what I had 'grown up' assuming was the "right one". That actually trying to find a "one true way" was a chimaera - an illusion and a waste of my time. Better was to accept that there are many ways to roleplay - and try as many as I can to find out which ones I like!

Yep. Which is part of why I say that in this, Edwards was wrong, and that the model does not match reality well in this regard. That is a possibility, you know - that his model isn't very close to reality.

Yes, it's possible - but I use it for much the same reason I use science: it provides benefit to me in my experience and my experience so far tells me that it has value for me.

There's a bit of a bugaboo out there about classifying people. Here's the thing - there's nothing wrong in general with taking a large group of people, and finding clusters of likes or dislikes among them, and then using that information to try to better serve people in one or more of those clusters. The issues arise when you try to treat individuals as if membership in a group is the most important thing about them.

Some people like ice cream. Some people like lamb balti. Knowing these things about someone may well be helpful if I am asked to recommend a restaurant to them. They may very well like both - in which case I would still recommend that they do not mix ice cream and lamb balti in the same dish.

Classification assumes that individuals placed in one group cannot also belong to others. Individuals that like more than one activity would often be very well advised not to try doing them all at once. Another analogy I have used before: I like cycling (pushbike riding); I also like watching theatre. I have never tried doing both at the same time, and in general I would advise against it. That is not even to say it would not be possible to cycle around while watching a play, but there are several good reasons why it might not be as fulfilling an experience as it might be.

Likewise with GNS; I would say it is very likely that an individual will like more than one of the agendas, possibly all three. It is also possible that they might be able, for a while at least, to successfully pursue more than one of them at a time. But I have seen enough problems and issues with doing so that I think, in general, it is a better idea to set out primarily to pursue one of them for a specific game or campaign.

In game design, this translates slightly differently. I think a game system should, all else being equal, try to support one agenda well. If it can support a second as well, all well and good - but if conflicts arise there should still be a "top dog" or the design will end up not supporting any agenda well. If the system makes it clear what agenda it primarily supports, so much the better as this will (a) allow those who don't want to pursue that agenda at this time to pick a different system and (b) let players know what agenda(s) is/are expected of them as they come to the game.

As a physicist, I disagree with that statement, but don't feel it'll be valuable to this discussion to go down that rathole at this time.

Despite that I only really meant the comment in a fairly "light" way, and that I agree that it's a very deep rathole, as an engineer I would stand by that statement all the way - in pm, if you really want.

I don't think familiarity with Edwards' work breed edition warring. I tend to think that a lack of familiarity with different approaches to play, and a lack of understanding of the range of techniques and systems that support those different approaches, produces edition warring.

This is very much my view, too. Perhaps, more specifically, my view of "Edition Warring" changed markedly due to my understanding of the content of GNS theory. What I now disagree with is the argument that there is one, true way to roleplay and any new system should seek to become closer to it. I also disagree that, for any particular individual, there is one, true system that will meet all their needs and be all they ever need to play. With that view, trying to influence present or future editions to include everything that you like is misguided and, in my view, doomed to painful failure (even if you "succeed").

This informs all my posts on "Editions". I like D&D 4E - I find it does something I like very well. I will support and defend it on that basis.

I personally have no real attraction to 3.x any more - not because it is a "bad" system but becuase what I found it did well, 4E does better. But I played 3.x happily in years gone by and if some find what they like supported by it then they should absolutely be free to take advantage of that. I am pleased, also, that Pathfinder exists to support their needs on an ongoing basis; I wish it and them good luck.

I also play other (non-D&D) systems, because 4E does not support all agendas/styles. I think those other systems do what others say they see in 3.5 better than 3.5 - but my "better" may not be their "better", so I'll hold my tongue (aside from possibly mentioning that such other games exist) and let them enjoy what they find there.

In other words, just because I like X, doesn't mean everybody likes X and, even if they do, they might not like it all the time, and even if they do that, they might have found a better way to do it than I have!