Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5849825" data-attributes="member: 4937">No, I'm not.From my perspective, I'm offering proof by exception to universal assertions.&nbsp; People in this thread are making broad assertions about things that are supposedly universally true.&nbsp; They are not saying, &quot;In the games I played, 1e is grittier than 3e and I liked that.&quot;, but rather, &quot;1e is grittier than 3e&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; To the assertion, &quot;1e is gritter than 3e&quot;, it is fair to respond, &quot;I've experienced the opposite.&quot;&nbsp; Because I've experienced the opposite, I would never assert &quot;1e is grittier than 3e&quot;, because I recognize from my experience that that isn't universally true.&nbsp;&nbsp; When I say, &quot;The least gritty games I ever played were in 1e.&quot;, and you say, &quot;I totally disagree with that.&quot;, then quite frankly whatever you think you are doing you've left the bounds of polite discourse.&nbsp; How can you disagree with my experience?&nbsp; You can only say, &quot;That wasn't my experience.&quot;&nbsp; That's not disagreement or agreement.&nbsp; That's accepting that we have different experience.&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;1e is grittier in my opinion...&quot;, is mistaking again your experience for your opinion.&nbsp; It's fine to assert, &quot;First edition is very fun to play.&quot;&nbsp; That's an opinion.&nbsp; When you say, &quot;1e is grittier in my opinion&quot;, in response my experience, what are you trying to say?&nbsp;&nbsp; And when you go on to, &quot;..and IS an attribute of the rules and has little to do with culture at the table.&quot;, you are asserting your experience and opinion not as either but as fact.&nbsp;&nbsp; What am I so supposed to answer that with? &nbsp;All I can say is what I've been saying all along; I recognize your experience.&nbsp;&nbsp; I sympathize with it.&nbsp;&nbsp; I have had something very much like your experience.&nbsp; But what you are describing is not the limit of what is possible with either 1e or 3e, and I know that from experience. I have little idea what 'the norm' is.&nbsp;&nbsp; Some how I suspect thats another euphamism for, &quot;games the way I've experienced them&quot;, because I haven't seen a lot of statistics for what is normal.&nbsp;&nbsp; Perhaps 'the norm' here means, &quot;games as they ought to be in my opinion&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't know.&nbsp; An extreme is a valid exception case to a universal statement.&nbsp; I don't really know what departs from 'the norm'.&nbsp; I have some feelings about what has become normal among people who have stayed with 1e on the basis of what they might have in common that still attracts them to the system, but that's not anything I can prove either.&nbsp;&nbsp; My guess is that its certainly not normal now in ongoing games of 1e to have characters doing 80 or 100 points of damage in a round even in high level games, because the system doesn't really reward that even though it provides it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Or to the extent that it does, a tweaked system might reward it better.&nbsp;&nbsp; However, that doesn't mean it was unheard of or that unusual 20 years ago.&nbsp;&nbsp; If anything, I knew that there were some more 'Monte Haul' games out there than our least gritty game (because any game that is less gritty than your own is 'Monte Haul', am I right).&nbsp; Heck, this same group rejected Dark Sun (fairly or unfairly) as being too over powered and too much power creep.It's not a conclusion.&nbsp; I'm not concluding that 1e is less gritty than 3e.&nbsp; I'm only noting that grittiness is not an inherent attribute of either.&nbsp; It's a style that a DM brings to a table, either by design or by accident.&nbsp;&nbsp; The same is true about how fast a system levels you up, or by what degree of abstraction is rewarded in a player proposition.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sure, a system can by its presentation or culture push a DM towards a default play style, but that's not the same thing.Full agreement.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5849825, member: 4937"] No, I'm not. From my perspective, I'm offering proof by exception to universal assertions. People in this thread are making broad assertions about things that are supposedly universally true. They are not saying, "In the games I played, 1e is grittier than 3e and I liked that.", but rather, "1e is grittier than 3e". To the assertion, "1e is gritter than 3e", it is fair to respond, "I've experienced the opposite." Because I've experienced the opposite, I would never assert "1e is grittier than 3e", because I recognize from my experience that that isn't universally true. When I say, "The least gritty games I ever played were in 1e.", and you say, "I totally disagree with that.", then quite frankly whatever you think you are doing you've left the bounds of polite discourse. How can you disagree with my experience? You can only say, "That wasn't my experience." That's not disagreement or agreement. That's accepting that we have different experience. "1e is grittier in my opinion...", is mistaking again your experience for your opinion. It's fine to assert, "First edition is very fun to play." That's an opinion. When you say, "1e is grittier in my opinion", in response my experience, what are you trying to say? And when you go on to, "..and IS an attribute of the rules and has little to do with culture at the table.", you are asserting your experience and opinion not as either but as fact. What am I so supposed to answer that with? All I can say is what I've been saying all along; I recognize your experience. I sympathize with it. I have had something very much like your experience. But what you are describing is not the limit of what is possible with either 1e or 3e, and I know that from experience. I have little idea what 'the norm' is. Some how I suspect thats another euphamism for, "games the way I've experienced them", because I haven't seen a lot of statistics for what is normal. Perhaps 'the norm' here means, "games as they ought to be in my opinion". I don't know. An extreme is a valid exception case to a universal statement. I don't really know what departs from 'the norm'. I have some feelings about what has become normal among people who have stayed with 1e on the basis of what they might have in common that still attracts them to the system, but that's not anything I can prove either. My guess is that its certainly not normal now in ongoing games of 1e to have characters doing 80 or 100 points of damage in a round even in high level games, because the system doesn't really reward that even though it provides it. Or to the extent that it does, a tweaked system might reward it better. However, that doesn't mean it was unheard of or that unusual 20 years ago. If anything, I knew that there were some more 'Monte Haul' games out there than our least gritty game (because any game that is less gritty than your own is 'Monte Haul', am I right). Heck, this same group rejected Dark Sun (fairly or unfairly) as being too over powered and too much power creep. It's not a conclusion. I'm not concluding that 1e is less gritty than 3e. I'm only noting that grittiness is not an inherent attribute of either. It's a style that a DM brings to a table, either by design or by accident. The same is true about how fast a system levels you up, or by what degree of abstraction is rewarded in a player proposition. Sure, a system can by its presentation or culture push a DM towards a default play style, but that's not the same thing. Full agreement. [/QUOTE]

Verification