A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[Dannager]

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.

Ooooh, now this is interesting. You trust what I have to say less than your typical poster, then?

 

[Dannager]

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).

I'm sure some people who use it share a common understanding, and their minds are in perfect sync. Many do not. Be clearer, and everyone will be happier.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

This is an issue that comes up often. People get asked to clarify "opinions" and as soon as they do, they get those points shot down as if they were "facts".

I wouldn't clarify my opinion either if every time I did I was told I was wrong.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ooooh, now this is interesting. You trust what I have to say less than your typical poster, then?

Well, I wouldn't take it too personally.

When I look at another poster, I don't mind if they come from a strongly held position, but I do look to see if they are actually seeming to read and understand the other side. There's nothing wrong with not being convinced by the other side, mind you, if you are able to comprehend it first, and don't appear to be dismissing it out of hand.

IME, many things that seem true can look...odd....from other points of view, and many things that seem odd might appear quite sensible to a lot of other people.

Your posts come across as being angry and/or dismissive. They come across as though you don't actually value the opinions of the other side. And, again, if true, that's your look-out. There are peoples' opinions on EN World and elsewhere I couldn't give two figs for, because they have demonstrated that there is no reason to.

And I accept that my "reader filter" might be making me misread you. If I was the author of your posts, though, it would be because I was angry and dismissive. So, when I read your posts, I keep getting an "angry and dismissive" vibe, and it colours what I read. Even when I agree with you, I am not at all sure that we agree on the basis of evidence.

I'll admit that I trust a poster far less who goes out on a limb, has his "facts" blown out from under his feet, and that poster never has the grace to say, "You know what? I was wrong." Or even, "I disagree with you still, but I was wrong to go about it the way I did."

And I'll admit even further that any poster who wants to take control of the terminology used (Thou Shalt Not Say Videogamey) pings my radar. And I have been that poster (as I recall, over the issue of "fluff" vs. "crunch"), and I had to admit to myself that it isn't really the terminology, but the ideas behind the terminology, that were the issue.

Anyone who's been on this board long enough knows that I am capable of some knee-jerk stupidity. Anyone reading my posts is fully justified in thinking, "Has he thought this through, or is this just some new piece of knee-jerk stupidity?"

But, when I realize that something is knee-jerk stupidity, I can admit that it is what it is, and I can apologize for it. Probably not often enough, but I can do it, and I will do it when it seems warranted. I am also capable of changing my mind when the evidence is against my currently-held position.

I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, until they have proven they don't deserve it. I like to assume that they have something to express, even if they are having difficulty expressing it. I like to give every post the "best possible reading", although I often fall short in the attempt.

That's all pretty long-winded and rambling, but the short version is this: I think you have intelligent things to say. But I have read a lot of your posts, and I don't think you are honest with yourself. I could be wrong -- I hope I am -- but if I were the author of your posts.......well, I guess I have been the author of similar stuff, and I'm glad someone finally called me on it.

(And it's perfectly okay to say this train of thought reflects more on me than on you.)

RC

 

[MichaelSomething]

Why do people think video games are overall less realistic? By sheer computing power, they can take into account every variable that might exist. Dwarf Fortress is considered a highly simulationist game.

 

[LostSoul]

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".

I don't think Thunderfoot has revealed inaccurate knowledge of the game.

Healing Surges are hard to remove from the game; Wands of Cure Light Wounds are not.

The game hands out treasure based on party level, not individual choices made by the players.

Some - not most, but some - of the powers are "wire-fu".

I'd guess that Thunderfoot would like a game where you have to work for what you get, bad stuff lurks around every corner, and your choices are the difference between success and failure. Of course, I can think of video games that are like that (Rogue-likes and X-Com), which is why I think the term is confusing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thanks LostSoul. I appreciate your input here.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

My name is Saeviomagy. I know and play 4e. I've been wrong quite a bit in threads all over these boards.

There have been many elements of many versions of RPGs that have video game feeling elements - that were easy to remove. 4e makes it harder - everyone casts spells (or has abilities, whatever) healing surges, combat roles. Incredible amounts of money and magic REQUIRED at levels in order to play. Just remove the magic items from the mix and see how long your world holds together in RAW.

Dannager is totally right here. 4e lets you remove the magic items and retain balance.

If you don't care about balance, just remove them without compensation. The world holds together exactly as well as any previous edition where the same thing was done: the DM has to compensate for it or his game will fall apart.

I think the big thing here is that the CORE rulebooks of every edition started small and added things that certain players wanted. 4e started with all the Wire-fu, video game stuff built in and it makes it that much harder to get past. Yes there are some things that the edition got right like rituals, but OVERALL, the FEEL, yes FEEL, (not a specific rule, the FEEL) is that of a video game transported to a table top RPG. And that's fine if it's what you want, I don't.

I'm not sure how 4e is more wire-fu than previous editions because wire-fu is another very vague term. Does it actually mean doing flashy aerial moves? Because 3e had pretty much identical jumping rules and previous editions didn't have much in the way of rules for jumping at all (that I recall), so it's a very nebulous thing back then.

I want dark, gritty and deadly; hard to do if players are healed after every encounter to full, no questions asked. Most of what I've seen in this thread is supports of 4e saying show me how it's video-gamey and those that feels that way complaining that those that disagree aren't listening. And to an extent that's true.

Full healing after all combats was pretty common in previous editions, it's just that it required a cleric to do it. Again, you can feel free to reduce or eliminate surges from the game if you don't care about balance.

I want there to be a difference - no wire-fu moves, no outrageous amounts of required magic items, no 3 million GP requirements for treasure (Astral Diamonds, really).

I like a BIT of realism in my D&D and up until this edition it was easy to drop certain things, or ignore add-ons to get it to that sweet spot. It's nearly impossible to do so without altering the rules to the point of re-writing the PHB and really, who wants to do that. So, is THAT clear enough?

That is. Well, except for what you mean by wire-fu.

 

[Dannager]

This is an issue that comes up often. People get asked to clarify "opinions" and as soon as they do, they get those points shot down as if they were "facts".

We're not shooting down opinions. We're shooting down the facts that people decide to use to justify their opinions.

For instance, Thunderfoot's opinion was that 4e is bad (roughly speaking). To support this opinion, he declared that you couldn't remove magic items without rewriting the PHB. This is an attempted statement of fact. I countered with the fact that the game actually includes rules for removing magic items from the game.

Don't confuse the refutation of things presented as facts with shooting down opinions.

 

[Dannager]

I don't think Thunderfoot has revealed inaccurate knowledge of the game.

Healing Surges are hard to remove from the game; Wands of Cure Light Wounds are not.

Right, you could remove wands of Cure Light Wounds. Of course, you'd also have to remove: healing potions, staffs with healing magic, clerics, druids and bards.

But yeah, I'm sure removing those things is no big deal and is certainly something that Thunderfoot does in order to make sure that his party doesn't heal up between fights.

The game hands out treasure based on party level, not individual choices made by the players.

3.5 has an expected Wealth By Level set of guidelines. 4e has similar guidelines, but it also provides a framework that allows the DM to easily meet those guidelines.

So, really, it's like 3.5 except it actually helps the DM follow the game's rules better.

I'd guess that Thunderfoot would like a game where you have to work for what you get, bad stuff lurks around every corner, and your choices are the difference between success and failure. Of course, I can think of video games that are like that (Rogue-likes and X-Com), which is why I think the term is confusing.

I could run a 4e game like that with absolutely no difficulty. It wouldn't be much fun, from my perspective (mostly because of the bad-stuff-lurks-around-every-corner part). I think, unfortunately, Thunderfoot is under the impression that 4e prevents him from running the game he wants, or that it makes it harder to do so than 3.5 does.