Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9224913" data-attributes="member: 4937">I mean, it's not just the problem of the hit points.Fourth edition in its design loudly screamed at the reader, &quot;IT'S JUST A GAME!&nbsp; STOP TAKING IT SO SERIOUSLY.&nbsp; ACCEPT THAT IT IS A GAME AND JUST ENJOY IT.&quot;&nbsp; And, on some level there isn't anything wrong with that.&nbsp; That an RPG is just a game and shouldn't be taken too seriously is undeniable.&nbsp; And certainly there is nothing wrong with that aesthetic paradigm.&nbsp; But it's a very different take on D&amp;D than the historical one that Jon Peterson famously called &quot;Playing at the World&quot;.&nbsp; As such, it shouldn't at all be surprising that 4e appealed strongly to players with very different aesthetics than 1e, 2e, or 3e.&nbsp; It likewise shouldn't be surprising, that if you pull a &quot;New Coke&quot; move with the biggest brand in the marketplace that you'll lose more customers than you win over.&nbsp; Whether or not &quot;New Coke&quot; tastes better than classic Coke or not is entirely subjective.&nbsp; But that people who are happy with their taste preference will be unhappy when you change it is predictable.The biggest and most irksome thing about 4e is the people who insist nothing changed about its aesthetic paradigm.&nbsp; I have no problem with you claiming that 4e was a better game for you than any prior version but claiming that nothing had changed about how the rules related to the setting and that this was just another iteration of D&amp;D strikes me as a complete lack of confidence in your own aesthetic preferences.&nbsp; Like what you like, but don't think you need to win this particular argument to justify you liking it to me.&nbsp; It's objectively true that 4e overturned so much about how D&amp;D related rules to setting and also changed so much about the setting at the same time.&nbsp; This doesn't make 4e objectively bad, but it does make it objectively different.Take for example the idea of &quot;minions&quot;.&nbsp; Minions are most defined by the 4e rule: &quot;Hit points: 1, a missed attack never damages a minion.&quot;&nbsp; Now I can easily understand what that represents in the game, what does that rule represent in terms of the in universe reality?&nbsp; These creatures are never injured.&nbsp;&nbsp; If they are hit, they are dead.&nbsp; Even the lightest damage kills them.&nbsp; A rat is more durable.&nbsp; OK, but then a minion can be of any level - that was the thing that made them as a game mechanic interesting.&nbsp; You could have 12th level or 15th level minions.&nbsp; Now try to imagine them living in the same world and same story as the PCs.&nbsp; Do they die when they burn their hands on hot soup?&nbsp; When they stay out for an hour in a sleet storm, is that fatal?&nbsp; Imagine for a second what hit points are supposed to represent and this otherwise highly skilled warrior who has trained for years has none of them, and indeed so few of them that one training accident or one tumble down a flight of stairs is always fatal.&nbsp;&nbsp; It would be one thing if you said minions had hit points equal to their level.&nbsp; That could be rectified.&nbsp; But the fact that they don't points to the real reason why minions have 1 hit point, and it's not anything to do with the game universe - it's to avoid having any bookkeeping.&nbsp; It's really an entirely out of game justification.What you have to do to make this make any sense is say that the rules really aren't modelling anything about the game universe.&nbsp; The metarule here is &quot;Things that are off stage or don't involve interacting with the PCs don't follow the games rules.&quot;&nbsp; The same character doesn't have a consistent set of stats and attributes, but rather acquires a different set of stats and attributes depending on its role in the envisioned story.&nbsp; The metagame is paramount, not the simulated reality.&nbsp; The same character has a different stat block depending on whether it is an antagonist, a side character, a NPC's minion, a PC's henchmen, or a PC.&nbsp; Stats weren't modelling any consistent reality in 4e.&nbsp; And again, there is nothing wrong with that, but it is a change.&nbsp; &quot;It's just a game, so it doesn't need to model anything&quot; is the real underlying paradigm of 4e.&nbsp; There is no &quot;Mind the gap.&quot; in 4e.&nbsp; It's &quot;The gap is intentional.&nbsp; Pay it no heed.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9224913, member: 4937"] I mean, it's not just the problem of the hit points. Fourth edition in its design loudly screamed at the reader, "IT'S JUST A GAME! STOP TAKING IT SO SERIOUSLY. ACCEPT THAT IT IS A GAME AND JUST ENJOY IT." And, on some level there isn't anything wrong with that. That an RPG is just a game and shouldn't be taken too seriously is undeniable. And certainly there is nothing wrong with that aesthetic paradigm. But it's a very different take on D&D than the historical one that Jon Peterson famously called "Playing at the World". As such, it shouldn't at all be surprising that 4e appealed strongly to players with very different aesthetics than 1e, 2e, or 3e. It likewise shouldn't be surprising, that if you pull a "New Coke" move with the biggest brand in the marketplace that you'll lose more customers than you win over. Whether or not "New Coke" tastes better than classic Coke or not is entirely subjective. But that people who are happy with their taste preference will be unhappy when you change it is predictable. The biggest and most irksome thing about 4e is the people who insist nothing changed about its aesthetic paradigm. I have no problem with you claiming that 4e was a better game for you than any prior version but claiming that nothing had changed about how the rules related to the setting and that this was just another iteration of D&D strikes me as a complete lack of confidence in your own aesthetic preferences. Like what you like, but don't think you need to win this particular argument to justify you liking it to me. It's objectively true that 4e overturned so much about how D&D related rules to setting and also changed so much about the setting at the same time. This doesn't make 4e objectively bad, but it does make it objectively different. Take for example the idea of "minions". Minions are most defined by the 4e rule: "Hit points: 1, a missed attack never damages a minion." Now I can easily understand what that represents in the game, what does that rule represent in terms of the in universe reality? These creatures are never injured. If they are hit, they are dead. Even the lightest damage kills them. A rat is more durable. OK, but then a minion can be of any level - that was the thing that made them as a game mechanic interesting. You could have 12th level or 15th level minions. Now try to imagine them living in the same world and same story as the PCs. Do they die when they burn their hands on hot soup? When they stay out for an hour in a sleet storm, is that fatal? Imagine for a second what hit points are supposed to represent and this otherwise highly skilled warrior who has trained for years has none of them, and indeed so few of them that one training accident or one tumble down a flight of stairs is always fatal. It would be one thing if you said minions had hit points equal to their level. That could be rectified. But the fact that they don't points to the real reason why minions have 1 hit point, and it's not anything to do with the game universe - it's to avoid having any bookkeeping. It's really an entirely out of game justification. What you have to do to make this make any sense is say that the rules really aren't modelling anything about the game universe. The metarule here is "Things that are off stage or don't involve interacting with the PCs don't follow the games rules." The same character doesn't have a consistent set of stats and attributes, but rather acquires a different set of stats and attributes depending on its role in the envisioned story. The metagame is paramount, not the simulated reality. The same character has a different stat block depending on whether it is an antagonist, a side character, a NPC's minion, a PC's henchmen, or a PC. Stats weren't modelling any consistent reality in 4e. And again, there is nothing wrong with that, but it is a change. "It's just a game, so it doesn't need to model anything" is the real underlying paradigm of 4e. There is no "Mind the gap." in 4e. It's "The gap is intentional. Pay it no heed." [/QUOTE]

Verification