A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[Raven Crowking]

Wait, what?

You're touting full healing between all encounters as ideal gameplay, insofar as to say it's "a shame" for that to not be commonplace?

AFAICT, the "shame" is that "IMHO, and IME, full healing between all encounters was not common to any prior edition. An argument that relies upon the idea that it is fails for me on that basis."

I've said it in other threads, and I'll say it again here: If you approached earlier edition D&D in the same manner as 4e is designed to be approached, it's going to be much harder for you to grasp why others have problems.

But, let us say that Bob and Sue are discussing radio dramas. Bob doesn't like them; he prefers a picture. Sue says, "But I always closed my eyes and just listened to the TV!"

That may explain why Sue sees no real difference, but it fails utterly as a response to Bob's concern.

When Sue says, "It's a shame you didn't close your eyes, too!" it may express some desire on Sue's part that Bob share her preferences, but it also utterly fails as a response to Bob's concern.

Compound this now: Bob says that the radio drama is too "auditory", and Sue claims that she doesn't understand what he means. No matter how he tries to explain it, Sue just keeps coming back with (1) there was as auditory component to TV, too, and (2) although she understands Bob's position enough to dismiss it outright Bob just hasn't communicated his position clearly enough to be understood.

Let me repeat, in case the dichotomy isn't obvious enough: Although she understands Bob's position enough to dismiss it outright Bob just hasn't communicated his position clearly enough to be understood.

It is, actually, an inarguable fact that Bob has not communicated clearly enough to be understood. Although, again, Sue understands just enough to know that Bob is wrong.

On top of that, Sue keeps claiming that Bob just isn't rational in his position.

Sorry, but from where I am standing, it seems to me that this is entirely Sue's problem.


RC

 

[Dannager]

It isn't a shame; it is a preference.

Of course, I know that you love the Delve format, too, so there's no accounting for taste.

It's always fun to track how reliably a person's opinion in one area will inform their opinion in other, seemingly unrelated areas.

So you misspoke.

Sort of. Wealth by Level and treasure parcels are guidelines because they are merely tools to assist the DM in meeting the mathematical assumptions of the game (these mathematical assumptions can more easily be called "rules", because adhering to them ensures the proper functioning of the game). The DM can ignore those guidelines in favor of guidelines he has created himself, and as long as his own guidelines provide the party with the assumed bonuses from magic equipment, the game remains perfectly intact. If the DM thinks that this is too hard to pull off, or is badwrongfun somehow, he can always use inherent bonuses instead.

It's entirely possible that this is the vast majority.

And yet the ones you would be trying to persuade by sharing your supported opinion are those for whom this is not the case.

Again, it's no skin off your back to simply skip a few steps along the way and get straight to discussing the issues. I daresay it'd make things easier on you. There is no downside, except apparently for the argument that people don't respond rationally to anything so therefore we shouldn't bother to encourage them to respond rationally (a sad, sad argument that I'm pretty sure no one actually believes in anyway).

Not proven. And I doubt it is a fact, much less an "inarguable" one.

You've got half a thread full of them right here.

I am also not convinced at all that "I don't understand" is the case, or is the case anymoreso than any other term used in gaming parlance. I am convinced that some people, who are offended by the idea the term encapsulates, would like us to believe that "I don't understand" is the case so that we will stop talking about that idea.

On the contrary, we're actively encouraging you to talk about the idea. Just, y'know, actually talk about the idea, rather than obscuring the entire argument behind a single made-up word.

Trust me, we're ecstatic to have the opportunity to discuss exactly why you think 4e is videogamey with you (again, collective you), because in pretty much every case these reasons get ripped to shreds upon examination. As we've held throughout this whole thread (and was demonstrated beautifully by Thunderfoot), most of the criticisms of 4e over "videogameyness" are rooted in either ignorance of video games or ignorance of 4e.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Everything doesn't reset, of course. Healing surges are part of a character's health in 4E, not just hit points.

I tried to drop you XP, because this is an excellent, and very relevant point. IF the characters cannot take an extended rest, THEN everything doesn't reset.

I think that the structure of 4e (for some reasons I outlined a bit upthread) makes that IF harder to achieve than it should be. But the concept of healing surges are not inherently problematic to me.


RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Quote:
I take it you are not aware that Operation Repo is completely 100% fake? It's a scripted show man. It got it's start on a Mexican station in southern California before it got on network tv.

I read the fine print on that show: it isn't scripted, its filmed reenactments of actual events. Presumably, they've embellished it a bit. But it is not scripted.

In that, it resembles shows like "I (almost) got away with it" and others in the true crime genre TV shows.

 

[Dannager]

I've said it in other threads, and I'll say it again here: If you approached earlier edition D&D in the same manner as 4e is designed to be approached, it's going to be much harder for you to grasp why others have problems.

If you approached any edition of D&D in a manner contrary to the way it was designed to be approached, it's going to be much harder for you to grasp why others are enjoying the hell out of it.

 

[racoffin]

most of the criticisms of 4e over "videogameyness" are rooted in either ignorance of video games or ignorance of 4e.

Rather harsh terms here, and ones that are little more than opinions, much like the opinion about "videogameyness".

I might suggest that we ramp back on insults and keep the discussion on the level. Otherwise, we may as well have this thread locked as well.

 

[Dannager]

Rather harsh terms here, and ones that are little more than opinions, much like the opinion about "videogameyness".

I might suggest that we ramp back on insults and keep the discussion on the level. Otherwise, we may as well have this thread locked as well.

Ignorance is not in and of itself an insult, and posts throughout this thread have demonstrated that a number of the criticisms leveled at 4e (and, in turn, used to justify calling it "videogamey") are rooted in ignorance of the system (see: "You can't remove magic items without rewriting the PHB.").

I mean, at a certain point - likely somewhere around where we demonstrate that 4e actually does something someone criticized it for not being able to do - that ignorance becomes totally factual.

Do not confuse the calling out of ignorance with accusations of stupidity (accusations we have seen in this thread, but as usual not from the 4e supporters). It's not really possible to have a worthwhile discussion of the topic if we can't say "The things you are claiming are not true, and you are speaking from a position of a lack of sufficient knowledge of the topic."

 

[jmucchiello]

Exactly. People do not mean the same thing when they use the word "videogamey". In fact, they mean so many wildly different things (and wildly inaccurate things, to boot) that the term itself has gone from meaning to meaningless to confusing and distracting.

Do you also explode all over people who tell you to "Have a nice day"? Nice? What a useless word! It means different things to everybody. How in heck can you wish me a "nice" day when we haven't spent 25 pages on a forum arguing over the parameters of what "nice" is -- let alone "a nice day" is? Nice should just be banished from the dictionary.

Once again, my advice to you is to get over it. People will use the term videogamey (and nice) no matter how much you protest.

(With apologies to the late George Carlin... who, being dead, doesn't give a damn. So I retract my apology.)

 

[Dannager]

Do you also explode all over people who tell you to "Have a nice day"? Nice? What a useless word! It means different things to everybody. How in heck can you wish me a "nice" day when we haven't spent 25 pages on a forum arguing over the parameters of what "nice" is -- let alone "a nice day" is? Nice should just be banished from the dictionary.

You probably would have been better off with this argument if you hadn't included that last sentence.

The fact that "nice" is in the dictionary makes your whole post meaningless in this discussion. Our whole argument is that "videogamey" isn't a real word, and a lot of people have no idea what you mean when you use it.

I mean, heck, not only is it not in the dictionary, it's not even well understood by people within this tiny little corner of the internet.

You know what really cinches this whole thing for me? The fact that, if we did settle on a definition of "videogamey", a number of people would have to stop using it because it no longer means what they want it to mean.

Finally, if you think that any of this is "exploding all over" anyone, you should probably reconsider how you view online discussions. Read other people's posts in a calm, measured voice, and you will have something that is often much closer to the post's actual intent.

 

[racoffin]

Ignorance is not in and of itself an insult, and posts throughout this thread have demonstrated that a number of the criticisms leveled at 4e (and, in turn, used to justify calling it "videogamey") are rooted in ignorance of the system (see: "You can't remove magic items without rewriting the PHB.").

I mean, at a certain point - likely somewhere around where we demonstrate that 4e actually does something someone criticized it for not being able to do - that ignorance becomes totally factual.

Do not confuse the calling out of ignorance with accusations of stupidity (accusations we have seen in this thread, but as usual not from the 4e supporters). It's not really possible to have a worthwhile discussion of the topic if we can't say "The things you are claiming are not true, and you are speaking from a position of a lack of sufficient knowledge of the topic."

By the same token, repeating the same 'facts' and dismissing others opinions is an insult. Previously I remarked that you hadn't given any indication of where the bar is on knowing enough to comment on the game system or have a valid criticism; that information was never given.

Much of the 'facts' given in the thread are opinions on game play. The Wand of Cure Light Wounds or healing between encounters or a number of other elements brought up. Is it ignorance to disagree on these elements or to call into question elements of a game that you disagree with?

I will agree on one thing from your post: it is becoming increasingly impossible to have a worthwhile discussion on the topic if we cannot say "This is my opinion. Agree or not, this is what I believe."