A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[Dannager]

And this is why people shy away from giving more detailed responses.

...because they might be shown that the things about the game that cause them to believe it's like a video game aren't actually the case at all?

That's why people shy away?

Because, yeah, that's pretty much what we figured was the case.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actually, I'm glad you brought this up. I have the exact same issue with people who say things like

I know you do. Personally, I think it is an artifact of Bob.

Even when you post things I agree with, I have noted this "artifact of Bob"ness about your posts that has made me reluctant to XP them.

You can role-play using 4e. Absolutely. Any statement to the contrary is wrong.

BUT the reasons why people feel 4e (or 1e, or any ruleset) impede their ability to role-play? Not wrong. They are allowed to feel as they do, and the things that impede them need not impede you.

Somewhere out there, there is someone for whom chess is the perfect role-playing game, and who are we to tell him no? Somewhere out there, there is someone who can't role-play using any edition of D&D, and who are we to tell him that the assumptions of those rulesets are not an impediment, to him?


RC

 

[racoffin]

...because they might be shown that the things about the game that cause them to believe it's like a video game aren't actually the case at all?

That's why people shy away?

Because, yeah, that's pretty much what we figured was the case.

No. More that some equally ill-defined terms are brought out, such as "credible criticism", for example, or "anywhere near the familiarity".

Both of those are opinions and require knowing what you mean by those terms. For that matter, much of the debunking of his points of view are based on your opinion of the game, much as his is.

So, no, people shy away because they don't feel like being nitpicked or criticized for not having a "credible" opinion or having to have passed some nebulous bar before their opinions become valid.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Inherent bonuses.

PCs are only healed to full if they have the resources to do so (healing surges remaining). Similarly, PCs in previous editions are healed to full if they have the resources to do so (Wand of Cure Light Wounds).

So, I mean, questions asked.

That's assuming a DM is dumb enough to allow one. Obviously you've seen it, I feel sorry for you.

So the 200,000 gp required to get a maxed-out sword in 3.5/PF is fine, but the 3,000,000 gp required to get a maxed-out sword in 4e just ruins the immersion for you, huh. Somewhere between 200,000 and 3,000,000, they crossed the line.

A maxed out sword has never made it into my games, players earn what the get, not expect it handed out ala Monty Hall

You mean like how they actually let you drop magic items completely and still keep the math perfectly intact using inherent bonuses, unlike previous editions of the game?

Son, your problem is you want balance and as I've stated before balance is for communists....

The only thing that was clear from this post was that you have some very odd ideas about how 4e must work, and that I'm not sure you have anywhere near the familiarity required to pass off any kind of credible criticism of the game.

And you completely ignore the forest for the trees - so I'm done with you.

 

[Dannager]

BUT the reasons why people feel 4e (or 1e, or any ruleset) impede their ability to role-play? Not wrong. They are allowed to feel as they do, and the things that impede them need not impede you.

Absolutely. No one disagrees with this. They feel as they do, and feelings are not inherently right or wrong.

But everyone has reasons that they either actually have, or that they tell themselves are their reasons for feeling a certain way, and those can be examined.

For instance, Thunderfoot listed a number of reasons he felt that 4e is too videogamey. As it turned out, of course, a number of those reasons were rooted in inaccurate knowledge of the game. When people justify their feelings to themselves (and to others) with things that are not true, those justifications deserve to be addressed.

 

[Dannager]

That's assuming a DM is dumb enough to allow one. Obviously you've seen it, I feel sorry for you.

Allowing a wand of cure light wounds makes someone a dumb DM? I'll make sure to share your opinion with every 3.5 DM I've ever met.

But, hey, that's cool. Just replace "wand of cure light wounds" with "the party Cleric" and it remains a valid point.

Unless DMs who allow Clerics are dumb, too. I suppose it's possible that you believe that to be the case as well.

A maxed out sword has never made it into my games, players earn what the get, not expect it handed out ala Monty Hall

Then why do you care how much a maxed-out magic item costs?

I don't think this actually has anything to do with what we were talking about.

Son, your problem is you want balance and as I've stated before balance is for communists....

You said that you wanted a way to remove magic items from the game without requiring a rewrite of the PHB. I explained that such a way exists in 4e, but not in any other edition of the game. And your response (wait for it)...was to criticize the idea of balance?

Where did that come from?

And you completely ignore the forest for the trees - so I'm done with you.

Oh, guess we'll never know.

 

[Fifth Element]

For instance, Thunderfoot listed a number of reasons he felt that 4e is too videogamey. As it turned out, of course, a number of those reasons were rooted in inaccurate knowledge of the game. When people justify their feelings to themselves (and to others) with things that are not true, those justifications deserve to be addressed.

There is something to this, I think. People do tend to have a need to justify their preferences somehow, some category of thing to classify it under. "Videogamey" is one such category, and as an actual definition tends to break down when actually examined. But as you say, there's no need for these categories.

You can simply dislike something. And if you want to discuss particular reasons for it, so be it. But throwing out a term like "videogamey" does nothing for the discussion, because it has no precise meaning and is known to be taken as an insult by many, even if it is not intended as such.

I really don't like OD&D (though it is still awesome). I don't really care to discuss the reasons for it, though I'm sure I could specify some if I thought about it. I can just leave it at that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

For instance, Thunderfoot listed a number of reasons he felt that 4e is too videogamey. As it turned out, of course, a number of those reasons were rooted in inaccurate knowledge of the game.

You may be correct -- I don't have enough working knowledge of the current state of 4e to know for certain -- but I do know for certain that I trust Thunderfoot to be honest in his postings, rather than being dismissive as a knee-jerk reaction. So, for the moment, I'm going to say "Not Proven".

Get someone who is knowledgeable about 4e, and who also has a track record of being able to admit error and/or demonstrably has an open mind, to back you up, and I will accept that a number of Thunderfoot's reasons were rooted in inaccurate knowledge of the game.

But just because you say it? Sorry, that doesn't make it so. As I said before, even when you post things I agree with, I have noted this "artifact of Bob"ness about your posts that has made me reluctant to XP them.

It also makes me very reluctant to accept your conclusions at face value.


RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It is still valid for someone to say "X is too videogamey" if, in fact, it reminds them of videogames. The connection may be based on inaccuracies, but the mental connection between the two is still made.

This is not to say that said inaccuracies shoulndn't be corrected, but, IMHO, they should be corrected giving the benefit of the doubt to the peson making that statement that it was not done with intent to obfuscate.

 

[Oryan77]

No. It doesn't.

You're right. The thousands of people that use the term are all idiots. We think we understand each other via a single term, but as you point out, that is impossible (because you don't get it).

At this point, all I care about is getting this thread to page 20. This entire thread is videogamey.