So it's the old "Edition War" excuse to dismiss people?

[Lanefan]

What I'm saying is, I reject any definition of a "better" RPG that does not take into consideration what an RPG is for.

Agreed; and further:

A bus is designed for hauling people. A trailer truck, for hauling freight. A snowplow, for clearing snow.

With no surrounding context, which is the better vehicle?

Lanefan

 

[Crazy Jerome]

That makes it entirely academic, though, doesn't it? The point of an RPG is not to have a mathematically "better" RPG, it's to play it and have fun. What's the point of calling an RPG "better" if said definition does not mean it's any better at doing what it's designed to do?

What I'm saying is, I reject any definition of a "better" RPG that does not take into consideration what an RPG is for.

Well, that brings us back to Umbran's point, from the other angle. Is 2d10 or 3d6 as a resolution mechanic better than 1d20? Impossible to say. Does 2d10 or 3d6 produce a bell curve of probable options while d20 is linear? Yes, most definitely. Ergo, if we want a curve in the main resolution, 2d10 or 3d6 or some other such variant are highly likely to be better than d20. If we want linear, the opposite.

That doesn't say anything about perfection, either. Just because we want linear, doesn't mean that 1d20 trumps percentage dice or even d12 or something, at least not on that basis alone. It does pretty much trump 2d10 or 3d6. A is better than B doesn't say anything about C, D, etc.

Moreover, and this is where the point becomes really relevant, one of the multiple dice curves are likely to be much better than d20 + (bunch of stuff to fake a curve). And for that matter, d20 by itself is likely to be a lot better than d20 + (bunch of stuff to fake a curve), even with the curve being now missing. So the only way this won't be true is if the "bunch of stuff" add something important to the game, that you couldn't get more cleanly by using one of the more straight-forward options. Thus, once we know if we want, generally, a curve or linear, and what else we want on top of it, we can examine the main die resolution and the supporting materials objectively to see if they do that.

Sometimes when you do that examination you find out that the analysis of the desires is somewhat incomplete. (This is what happens someti9mes when people, for example, disparage hit point or Armor as AC without reallying considering the full range of what they are intended to do.)

It's impossible to be in any way objective about pieces of game design without clear analysis of the design. Once having arrived at the clear analysis, the critique of the design is likely to be less controversial, because it will be couched in terms of the analysis. Or on the flip side, it's not so much that people are arguing with bad logic, as that they are assuming premises that aren't shared or even articulated.

 

[Dausuul]

One can certainly point out that 4E split the fanbase. A lot of people deeply dislike 4E and jumped ship for Pathfinder. This means any would-be reunification edition must consider the desires of those people.

One can also point out that 4E split the fanbase rather than driving the whole thing away. A lot of people love 4E and stuck with it. This means any would-be reunification edition must also consider the desires of those people.

I am slightly boggled by the number of people who seem to think that the thing to do is completely ignore one of these two groups.

 

[Fifth Element]

So, sure, let's ban "you can't say that something is objectively better than something else." But, let's ban it by never bringing up that Something is objectively "better" or "higher quality" or etc. than Something Else. Because, really, that's not at all productive either.

Instead, let's say what we like, what we dislike, and why we think something is better at doing what it intends to do. Saying "X is better" and leaving it at that just doesn't help the conversation. As always, play what you like

Excellent point. X is objectively better than Y does nothing for conversation. If you're claiming objectivity, it means you think there is no discussion to be had. If someone disagrees with you, that means they don't see the truth.

 

[Harlock]

It's easy to pick at the idea that games can be judged objectively, because from a very real standpoint, it cannot be definitively said that something is better than something else; good and bad have mutable definitions.

However, these criticisms are little more than academic. For nearly all practical purposes, it's absolutely possible to judge whether one game is better than another.

For instance, professional video game reviewers do exactly that for a living. And, collectively and in aggregate, they set the nominative standard for what makes a game good. It's certainly possible to disagree with a particular review, but what this tells everyone else is that your opinions regarding video games are probably fairly far-removed from what most appreciate. Could one claim that Superman 64 is a better game than Super Metroid? Sure, they could, but that places them so far outside the norm that everyone listening might as well disregard anything they have to say on the topic.

The same can be applied, quite readily, to roleplaying game systems. Some are designed with care and well-considered principles, and others are slapped together haphazardly by amateurs. The former tend to play better than the latter.

We need to stop walking on eggshells when it comes to words like "better" or "worse", and the whole argument of, "You can't say that something is objectively better than something else!" really ought to be permanently retired from discussions of game editions, since that's a fundamentally non-productive statement and a great way to shut down an otherwise fruitful discussion.

But reviews are subjective by their very nature! You can comment on game mechanics, certainly, but that is not all a game is. Using your video game example, Final Fantasy XIII sucks. It's a simple button masher when it comes to mechanics. Oh sure, you can change paradigms, but they even dumbed that down with automating it completely, if I so choose. Mechanically, it's one of the worst game ever made, but that it STILL my opinion.

Someone else might think it's fine and dandy because all they want to do is press X. A third person might be a father who bought the game for his kid who is glad the kid can play it by herself. And, if the designers of the game were going for something that could be played by anyone, they hit the ball out of the park and should be commended because they hit their design paradigm goal! Give them a raise and release a sequel! (Oh, look at that...)

Add to the fact that the game is more than its mechanics! Look how beautiful FF13 is. Look at the storyline and how well it unfolds with the flashbacks. I could go on with more opinions, but again, mechanics alone do not make a game.

I might add that several game designers disagree with you as well. Most recently and notably, Monte Cook. Specifically, I quote:

I will argue that a great game can be designed embracing the idea that the GM and his or her ability to use logic and reasoning. (Of course it can. That’s the way virtually all tabletop games were designed for decades.) That’s not sloppy game design (making the GM do all the work), it’s a design paradigm that can shape a game designer’s choices.

emphasis added.

Reviews are subjective. Mechanics can be and are subjective. Saying otherwise is just plain ignoring the facts.

 

[Odhanan]

Hey Benoist! Did you really just come by to post about how you don't like to post here?

Not really.

What I saw was someone who felt let down by ENWorld's moderation which basically coopted your view that one has to be "with D&D... all editions", or rather pretend to be on air when posting on the board, in the presence of Eric's grandma in any case, or shut the heck up in order to "keep the peace" and maintain an "emotionally safe environment" for the users of the site.

To him and others like him I say: you actually don't have to get along with that kind of moderation. There are places out there, such as the RPG Site, which actually allow you to speak your mind, as long as you are ready to take a piece of the other posters' minds in return for your opinions.

You should know, since you post on the RPG Site yourself, Iain.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mechanics can be and are subjective.

Mechanics can also be objective: a FRPG including a weapon called a "greatsword" that, by rule, cannot cut or kill any character in the game, unlike the "butterknife" in the same RPG is an obvious and objective flaw*. It does not in any way model what it purports to model.





* Unless the game's designers are using non-standard definitions of "greatsword" and "butterknife", of course.

 

[Fifth Element]

What I saw was someone who felt let down by ENWorld's moderation which basically coopted your view that one has to be "with D&D... all editions", or rather pretend to be on air when posting on the board, in the presence of Eric's grandma in any case, or shut the heck up in order to "keep the peace" and maintain an "emotionally safe environment" for the users of the site.

No, you absolutely do not have to like all editions of D&D. Just be respectful when expressing anything - either like or dislike, both things can be expressed in an adult manner without resorting to insults. It's not about a "safe" environment, it's about an environment that's actually conducive to discussion. The idea that you need to be able to curse and degrade others in order to have a discussion is sorely misguided.

You should know, since you post on the RPG Site yourself, Iain.

I do, and that's how I know it's not all you're cracking it up to be. You complain that at ENWorld you can't speak your mind, but at theRPGsite you can't really, either. It's not the mods there that get you, it's the other posters who are only too quick to call you names and dismiss everything you say in the rudest way possible if you happen to disagree with them or dare to like 4E (for example).

All too often there's not much actual discussion at that site, certainly no more than we have here. There's a lot of vitriol and name-calling though. There's lots of talking past each other. But nor much discussion.

That's all I'll say about another board in this thread. I only mention it since you've promoted it twice now, and I thought I'd provide a bit of balance from someone who is not a moderator there.

 

[Fifth Element]

Double post.

 

[Herschel]

That makes it entirely academic, though, doesn't it?

Yes, no and everything in-between because....

The point of an RPG is not to have a mathematically "better" RPG, it's to play it and have fun.

Yes and no. A mathematically better game facilitates fun for many also.

What's the point of calling an RPG "better" if said definition does not mean it's any better at doing what it's designed to do?

Because it's an accurate word for the meaning intended. Unfortunately it's also an accurate word for other meanings because English is a goofy language or multiple meanings and exceptions.

What I'm saying is, I reject any definition of a "better" RPG that does not take into consideration what an RPG is for.

Again, two different meanings of the word. From my perspective, "tighter" would be a "better" term to use but it just sounds goofy.