D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[AlViking]

So, by this logic, it is impossible to ever say that any system is ever not particularly good for any particular things?

I can bill D&D as being precisely as good at literally anything as any other system, regardless of design differences? I can bill any other system as precisely as good as D&D at turn-based combat?

Because that's the logical result of this argument. No system can ever be better or worse at any use, no matter what. And I find that claim completely ridiculous. FATAL is just as good as D&D? Absolutely the Nine Hells not.

For many if not most things, better will always be a matter of opinion and what people value. If it's faster in game X to build a campaign world but I don't like the result, faster has no value to me. Some people prefer a more structured to some aspects of the game with clear and transparent rules determining outcomes instead of the judgment of a GM. What they consider arbitrary I consider immersive and engaging.

What's better for you is not automatically better for me. Especially when there are so many declarations of better followed by nothing more than "it's better because I say it is" or a copy of the preferred rules. Reply that those rules don't make for a better game for me and the response is typically that I just don't understand the rules and how much better they are.

In other words tell me all about your favorite French restaurant that you believe is so much better than my fast food burger joint. Wax poetic about atmosphere and the pairing of the perfect wine with your meal. It's never going to matter if I don't like the food your restaurant serves and I prefer a chocolate shake over an expensive glass of wine any day.

It's interesting to discuss different ways of doing things sometimes, but it's up to me to make the final call on whether something is better for me.

 

[AlViking]

Yeah, sorry folks, but, that conversation was getting far, far too antagonistic to be continued, so, questions about "better" or "worse" will be tabled and I will simply not answer them from now on.

My point is, and remains, that there are other systems where it is easier to run a sandbox than D&D. Nothing more, nothing less.

My point is that I enjoy the preparation for running a sandbox in D&D. If I'm playing D&D it actually takes less time for me to prep for a sandbox than it does for a published campaign or a linear campaign, even if that is not true for everyone.

 

[Hussar]

My point is that I enjoy the preparation for running a sandbox in D&D. If I'm playing D&D it actually takes less time for me to prep for a sandbox than it does for a published campaign or a linear campaign, even if that is not true for everyone.

Again, I've never disagreed with you on this point.

It works for you (and heck, it has worked for me too).

Better =/= easier.

I stand by the easier, simply because it's far less work to get off the ground. But better? That's ENTIRELY personal taste.

 

[AlViking]

Again, I've never disagreed with you on this point.

It works for you (and heck, it has worked for me too).

Better =/= easier.

I stand by the easier, simply because it's far less work to get off the ground. But better? That's ENTIRELY personal taste.

I wasn't arguing, sorry if it sounded like that. I was just trying to concisely state my point of view.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For many if not most things, better will always be a matter of opinion and what people value. If it's faster in game X to build a campaign world but I don't like the result, faster has no value to me. Some people prefer a more structured to some aspects of the game with clear and transparent rules determining outcomes instead of the judgment of a GM. What they consider arbitrary I consider immersive and engaging.

What's better for you is not automatically better for me. Especially when there are so many declarations of better followed by nothing more than "it's better because I say it is" or a copy of the preferred rules. Reply that those rules don't make for a better game for me and the response is typically that I just don't understand the rules and how much better they are.

In other words tell me all about your favorite French restaurant that you believe is so much better than my fast food burger joint. Wax poetic about atmosphere and the pairing of the perfect wine with your meal. It's never going to matter if I don't like the food your restaurant serves and I prefer a chocolate shake over an expensive glass of wine any day.

It's interesting to discuss different ways of doing things sometimes, but it's up to me to make the final call on whether something is better for me.

So, again, just to make this point as simple as possible:

It is not possible for any game to be better-suited to any purpose. Anyone who has ever said anything like that is objectively wrong. No game, regardless of mechanics, is ever better or worse at anything anyone can conceive of it doing.

52 Pickup is now precisely as good a sandbox game as D&D. That is the level of utter absurdity being asserted here.

 

[AlViking]

So, again, just to make this point as simple as possible:

It is not possible for any game to be better-suited to any purpose. Anyone who has ever said anything like that is objectively wrong. No game, regardless of mechanics, is ever better or worse at anything anyone can conceive of it doing.

52 Pickup is now precisely as good a sandbox game as D&D. That is the level of utter absurdity being asserted here.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 52 pickup isn't trying to be an RPG so it doesn't apply.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 52 pickup isn't trying to be an RPG so it doesn't apply.

You can't assert that. By your logic, if anyone tells you, "I find 52 Pickup easier to run sandboxes in", you can't tell them no. There can be no allowance; your rule was absolute.

So, again, I want to ask, as succinctly as possible:

It is not possible for any game, regardless of mechanics, to ever be better for any purpose, no matter what?

Because the moment you open that "X isn't trying to be a Y" thing, you have opened up the possibility that someone can assert that a particular game's rules aren't trying to be that thing. You have opened up the possibility that someone can, in fact, argue that a given game isn't good at a particular thing because it wasn't designed for that purpose. Which is, functionally, what Hussar is arguing. That D&D was not actually designed to support a sandbox experience, whereas that was very specifically the thing Ironsworn was designed to be.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, again, just to make this point as simple as possible:

It is not possible for any game to be better-suited to any purpose. Anyone who has ever said anything like that is objectively wrong. No game, regardless of mechanics, is ever better or worse at anything anyone can conceive of it doing.

52 Pickup is now precisely as good a sandbox game as D&D. That is the level of utter absurdity being asserted here.

Games can be, but 1) it doesn't boil down to one feature, 2) Different measures do still have a degree os subjectivity (for some people no prep is a feature, for others no prep is a problem, 3) there are stylistic preferences to consider (i.e. D&D might be great for me with a sandbox, but horrible for you; Ironsworn might be great for Hussar, but not to taste for me). You can definitely measure certain things. Like you can time combat (I've done this when developing games for example if I wanted character creation to be under 15 minutes, or if wanted combat to take no more than a few minutes). And so I think you can say "game X has faster combat than game Y". But lighter doesn't always mean better for sandbox, little to no prep, doesn't always mean better. I like ruleslight a lot but find I prefer a bit more crunch for sandbox for example.

Also one of the reasons people like D&D, whether you find the system good or bad is it is very popular, lots of people are willing to play it. And it has all kinds of features that are useful for sandbox play (it just has a rich source of things like monster content, magic item content, etc that work well with prepping one). It is also a game that pretty much everyone knows how to play. And there are people who have played D&D and don't feel a need to replace it with another game (there is nothing wrong with that either).

And again I don't use D&D as my main sandbox game. But telling D&D players "Your game isn't as good as mine" doesn't win people over. It just ,makes them want to argue with you

 

[Bedrockgames]

It is not possible for any game, regardless of mechanics, to ever be better for any purpose, no matter what?

Yes but you still have to account for taste preferences. A game with a robust social combat system, may be better suited for social interactions than a game without any mechanics for social interaction to some people.....except those of us who can't stand social combat systems and don't want mechanics intruding with that part of play for us. I think this is where a lot of these arguments start to break down.

 

[The Firebird]

Exactly; Ironswork doesn't do what I want in a sandbox, so it being easier to prepare is irrelevant.

You can't assert that. By your logic, if anyone tells you, "I find 52 Pickup easier to run sandboxes in", you can't tell them no. There can be no allowance; your rule was absolute.

It is not possible for any game, regardless of mechanics, to ever be better for any purpose, no matter what?

I don't think there is much value to trying to find a universal statement with clear bounds here.