D&D 3E/3.5 Ed Wars: 4E Fan Finally Gets 3E Fans' POV

[Herschel]

About on par with yours or mine, I'd say.
The man's experiences are his experiences. His perspectives are his perspectives. There's no a priori reason to think they're less valid than your own. Why not accept and respect them even if you disagree with them like the OP does?

Because they're based on a faulty assumption and easily dimissed logically. He can "feel" that way, but that doesn't make it very logical or factual.

 

[Herschel]

There's a flaw in that argument - you seem to ignore the fact that design, structure, and presentation matter, and can influence how players and GMs approach the game.

Yes, a GM and players can look past the rules as written, and take an eagle's eye view, and play as they like. But, especially for new players, there's a certain amount of "cannot see the forest for the tress" that can go on. People can get stuck in mental habits (even ruts) without realizing it.

Oh definitely, I'm not arguing that, but that's not actually the system itself either. Using 4E as an example, the system works really well for which ever type of play you want, but the early published WotC modules were absolutely horrible for presenting a diverse style of play. I think they should have paid much more attention to that when introducing a new system. It felt to me like they thought "We'll put this out and let the experienced gamers run with it first, then we'll "Red Box" it later for new players.

 

[Dausuul]

Because they're based on a faulty assumption and easily dimissed logically. He can "feel" that way, but that doesn't make it very logical or factual.

The assumption being that different games with different rulesets encourage different behavior in people who learn to play those games with no prior experience in games of that type?

Gee, how utterly illogical. Or, y'know, not.

 

[Herschel]

The assumption being that different games with different rulesets encourage different behavior in people who learn to play those games with no prior experience in games of that type?

Gee, how utterly illogical. Or, y'know, not.

Actually, it is illogical. As Umbran noted, presentation (and I'd also say expectation) is key. No skill system encourages or discourages role playing, for example. However, presentation of how to use that skill system in the game does encourage usage.

 

[Pour]

There's a flaw in that argument - you seem to ignore the fact that design, structure, and presentation matter, and can influence how players and GMs approach the game.

True, but the potentially unanswerable argument here is how they influence a player and GM. That is so entirely subjective we only have our personal prerogatives, which can't be proven right or wrong.

I'm still clueless why this thread exists. Is this to promote tolerance, and stoke edition warring? Ultimately, like with every single thread comparing editions, it ends up with someone saying 'Play what you like' because preference is preference.

 

[billd91]

Because they're based on a faulty assumption and easily dimissed logically.

You can "feel" that way, but that doesn't make it very logical or factual.

The fact of the matter is, he has observed some groups in his store. They might actually behave as he describes, they also might not. But you can't assume that his observations and perceptions are based on faulty assumptions unless you are also observing the same groups and the same behavior.

 

[billd91]

I'm still clueless why this thread exists. Is this to promote tolerance, and stoke edition warring? Ultimately, like with every single thread comparing editions, it ends up with someone saying 'Play what you like' because preference is preference.

I think the OP was making the admission that he has some understanding of and acknowledges the viewpoints of the other side in the 4e debate. I think we need more of that around here. The edition wars might be a little less sharp and annoying if we didn't summarily dismiss the other side's experiences and viewpoints.

 

[Herschel]

You can "feel" that way, but that doesn't make it very logical or factual.

The fact of the matter is, he has observed some groups in his store. They might actually behave as he describes, they also might not. But you can't assume that his observations and perceptions are based on faulty assumptions unless you are also observing the same groups and the same behavior.

Those groups behaving a certain way is not an indication of either system as a whole though.

To give you an example, there was a Pathfinder group playing at the table next to my 4E group at a store regularly. They always used miniatures and one of the guys noticed we did a lot more role playing than they did. People up around us noticed that too. Does that mean 4E's a much better game for role playing than Pathfinder? While I much prefer 4E I am not making that claim nor am I telling people that role playing is a flaw in the Pathfinder system.

 

[Dausuul]

Actually, it is illogical. As Umbran noted, presentation (and I'd also say expectation) is key. No skill system encourages or discourages role playing, for example. However, presentation of how to use that skill system in the game does encourage usage.

You're asserting stuff here as if it were obviously true, when in fact it requires some sort of justification with evidence or logic. At least the gaming store guy has anecdotal evidence. It's pretty weak, but it's more than what you've put forward so far. Edit: Didn't see your last post, where you put forward an anecdote. Your argument is now on a level with the gaming store guy's.

My own observation, based on watching the same gaming group playing in different systems, is that the system absolutely can encourage or discourage roleplaying. Complex systems take up more player brainpower, leaving less available for imagining the fiction. A system that is difficult to map onto the fiction is less likely to be narrated. Conversely, a system which requires player and/or DM judgement calls as a part of task resolution encourages roleplaying by forcing everyone to think about the fiction.

 

[Herschel]

My own observation, based on watching the same gaming group playing in different systems, is that the system absolutely can encourage or discourage roleplaying. Complex systems take up more player brainpower, leaving less available for imagining the fiction.

I'd argue this has more to do with the players' learning style than the actual system. If people who are more visual learners are shown how something works, for example, they'll have a better understanding of it than if they simply read the rules and more easily/smoothly integrate it in to their game.

Conversely, a system which requires player and/or DM judgement calls as a part of task resolution encourages roleplaying by forcing everyone to think about the fiction.

Not at all. In fact it can also take you completely out of role playing as you need to "stop & examine" the how/why more closely than having a clean resolution you can just go with. IoW, DM adjudicaation =/= role playing enhancement.