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

[Micah Sweet]

Point to me the place where he said D&D was a bad system. Point to me the place where he said Ironsworn is just an inherently, generically better system than D&D.

I'll wait.

Every single example you quoted is him saying Ironsworn is better at one specific task. Completely different thing. Every single time, he has very specifically referred to one specific task, sandbox game running/prep/effort.

Unless you disagree that Ironsworn is better at that thing than D&D is. Because of those factors.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you think it's necessary, make your case that 52 pickup is terrible for sandbox. I expect you'll get a lot of takers.

Seriously, you really are overstating your case. All I'm saying is that you can't simply claim that game is objectively better at a playstyle than another and not expect disagreement, especially when there are clearly factors that work against such a bold claim, as there are in this case.

I'm making no claims either way here. (Though I personally do believe it's terrible for a sandbox game for a variety of reasons.)

I am simply trying to determine what claim is being asserted when folks say, point-blank, that no game can ever be better or worse at any task no matter what.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Unless you disagree that Ironsworn is better at that thing than D&D is. Because of those factors.

No?

You are raising a complete nonsequitur.

I am not here defending the claim that Ironsworn is or isn't better at sandboxing than D&D. Having that actual conversation is something I support.

What I do not support is people rejecting having that conversation at all on the basis of "no game can ever be better or worse than any other game at anything."

 

[Bedrockgames]

....

So, are we now saying that there's a spectrum with degrees along the way and that some kinds of things called "sandbox" are not 100% fully exclusively sandbox-and-nothing-else?

Because if we are I'd really appreciate some recognition for having made that point hundreds of posts ago. With specific examples and explicit statements to that effect.

That isn't what I said. I am saying a sandbox is an open setting experience, where the promise is, the players can do as they want, and one of the most common ways of achieving that is of course with a map that has a bunch of stuff, but that isn't the only way you can do a sandbox.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is one possible valence of "better". It isn't the only one.

Which means it can't be better in an objective way, it's only better if speed is the most important metric to you, which several here have said isn't so.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No.

I'm saying that someone who argues "no game can ever be any 'better' or 'worse' than any other game, period, hands down, no exceptions" is arguing that ALL game design is both pointless and irrelevant.

Which kinda makes all of our conversations on here ever--everything you've ever written, everything you've ever played, everything you've ever designed--completely and utterly pointless. Not just a waste of time, an active antagonism to your own efforts!

No, it just makes largely subjective and subject to personal preference, like it's been all along.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which means it can't be better in an objective way, it's only better if speed is the most important metric to you, which several here have said isn't so.

Yes it can?

It is better in one particular sense. Like that's literally what it means. And even if speed isn't the only thing you care about, a massive gain in speed may be worth a sacrifice elsewhere.

Just because there are multiple directions of improvement, doesn't mean that improvement is now totally impossible. By that metric, the fact that we have more than one subject in school means that intelligence isn't possible, nobody can ever be "smarter" than anyone else ever no matter what. Utterly ridiculous.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You....do realize that the length and complexity of prep for doing sandboxing is what Hussar was describing.

Yes, I and I agreed that if the question is what is easier in terms of preparation: 1) little to no prep 2) lots of prep. Then the answer is 1. But my only point has been (and it seems Hussar agrees), 1 doesn't equal better and those different prep methods could produce very different experiences which will matter when choosing a system (it isn't a given that easier prep is going to lead to a more ideal sandbox for a given GM).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, it just makes largely subjective and subject to personal preference, like it's been all along.

Again: no. Subjectivity matters for deciding which increased characteristics matter to you.

It doesn't decide whether those characteristics ARE increased or not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes it can?

It is better in one particular sense. Like that's literally what it means. And even if speed isn't the only thing you care about, a massive gain in speed may be worth a sacrifice elsewhere.

Just because there are multiple directions of improvement, doesn't mean that improvement is now totally impossible. By that metric, the fact that we have more than one subject in school means that intelligence isn't possible, nobody can ever be "smarter" than anyone else ever no matter what. Utterly ridiculous.

I don't care about speed in my sandbox play. It does not make the experience better for me. Therefore, speedier sandbox equals better sandbox is not objectively true.

I can use logic too.