D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[TwoSix]

And perhaps more to the point, overreliance on first-hand knowledge is one of the most basic of fallacies. I don't doubt that some individuals have enjoyed playing 4e, but I do doubt that the design of the game is responsible for that result, in most cases.

.....aaaand I'm done.

 

[Obryn]

No. Since those other games are different.

And your example is also likely true in all cases, since enjoyment of the game is not solely a function of the rules.

But enjoyment of the game mechanics are a function involving the rules. You've said you run a heavily house ruled 3.5 - why houserule?

And different? In what ways? You don't see any sort of arrogant ignorance in basically saying, "You may like the game, but you have no idea why?" I mean - if I said "Your design sucks, and your players have fun despite that even if they think it's because of the system"... Well, isn't that kind of offensive to you and your players?

-O

 

[Neonchameleon]

No. Since those other games are different.

And your example is also likely true in all cases, since enjoyment of the game is not solely a function of the rules.

Of course it isn't solely a function of the rules. But if the rules don't encourage and enable your enjoyment find another game. All games reward certain things and make others hard work.

 

[D'karr]

No. Since those other games are different.

And your example is also likely true in all cases, since enjoyment of the game is not solely a function of the rules.

You don't have to play the game to make statements about it any more than you have to make movies in order to review them. I don't make any statements that I can't support

In most instances, a food critic EATS the food, before giving a review. A movie critic VIEWS the movie, before giving a review. And a music critic LISTENS to the music, before giving a review.

It would make sense that a game critic would PLAY the game, before passing judgement.

A movie critic that didn't SEE the movie has no leg to stand on when reviewing its merits. No matter how well informed, and reasoned his argument might be they are totally hollow.

Reading a forum, or a book about a game is definitely NOT the same as actually sitting down to play the game. No matter how well informed, or well reasoned you think your argument might be - you can't talk about the "enjoyment" of playing because you have not played it. You can make "clinical" assessments, but they're still hollow when it comes to the subjective of "enjoyment".

How can you remotely know what chocolate mousse tastes like if you've never eaten it? How can you make an informed and reasoned judgement of how people "enjoy" it or not? What basis do you have? None.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But enjoyment of the game mechanics are a function involving the rules. You've said you run a heavily house ruled 3.5 - why houserule?

Mostly because I enjoy writing rules. I do a good job, but I doubt that my tinkering is responsible for my players sticking around for all these years.

The relevant issue when we're talking about stuff on the boards is how we think stuff will aggregate over millions of people. The difference between a really good game and a really bad game might be 20% or 10% or 2% in terms of sales or participation, but it's worth talking about. Or at least anyone with an ENW account thinks it is.

 

[Ahnehnois]

No. You don't have to make movies to review them. But you need to either watch them or have a damn good reason not to. (I feel quite happy to not watch Saw or anything by Roman Polanski without actually seeing them).

Well, 4e is a series of books, and I read them (the main ones, anyway). And I'm probably about as eager to actually play it as you are to watch Saw movies. So I guess my opinion is as informed as it needs to be.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In most instances, a food critic EATS the food, before giving a review. A movie critic VIEWS the movie, before giving a review. And a music critic LISTENS to the music, before giving a review.

It would make sense that a game critic would PLAY the game, before passing judgement.

Am I a critic? Am I being paid and are my opinions being published? No. I don't see the need to hold myself to those standards. If I wrote about rpgs for a magazine or something, then your contention would be more appropriate.

A movie critic that didn't SEE the movie has no leg to stand on when reviewing its merits.

But since I'm not a critic, I don't need that. And can still be sufficiently well informed.

For example, I've read reviews of Battlefield Earth. I even had a college professor who was recruited to join the beginnings of the Scientology movement talk about it. I know it's a crappy movie. It's on many "worst movies of all time" lists. Have I seen it? No. Is there a chance that I could watch it and decide that it was great? Yes (albeit a small one). But I still can reasonably state that it's a terrible movie without having seen it. I know enough.

And I know a lot more about the various editions of D&D, even those that I haven't played or DMed myself.

Reading a forum, or a book about a game is definitely NOT the same as actually sitting down to play the game.

I make no claim to that effect. However, it's equally important that playing in one person's game does not extrapolate to other people's games very well. Even if [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] 's 4e game is great, that doesn't mean that 4e is or is not, nor does it predict what my experience would be (or that of some other person).

How can you make an informed and reasoned judgement of how people "enjoy" it or not? What basis do you have? None.

My assertions are based on theory and anecdotal evidence, like everyone else's on these boards. I am equally qualified to assert that a game has certain qualities (whether it be balance, enjoyability, or something else) as anyone else here. It's all philosophical, what's good and what's not. If you don't think that those opinions have enough support, you are welcome to shun ENWorld (which is full of such judgments) and consult a peer-reviewed academic rpg journal of your choice.

 

[Obryn]

Mostly because I enjoy writing rules. I do a good job, but I doubt that my tinkering is responsible for my players sticking around for all these years.

The relevant issue when we're talking about stuff on the boards is how we think stuff will aggregate over millions of people. The difference between a really good game and a really bad game might be 20% or 10% or 2% in terms of sales or participation, but it's worth talking about. Or at least anyone with an ENW account thinks it is.

You're dodging here, though. If I tell you, "You're wrong about why you think you enjoy your 3.5-derived house system," what can I possibly be drawing that on?

Well, 4e is a series of books, and I read them (the main ones, anyway). And I'm probably about as eager to actually play it as you are to watch Saw movies. So I guess my opinion is as informed as it needs to be.

But if I were to try and talk about the Saw movies' merits and flaws, I had damn well better watch them or else my opinions are baseless and without value. And I'd just be an arrogant blowhard if I tried to actually critique the scenes, filmography, or directing.

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

You're dodging here, though. If I tell you, "You're wrong about why you think you enjoy your 3.5-derived house system," what can I possibly be drawing that on?

Nothing. Why do you ask?

But if I were to try and talk about the Saw movies' merits and flaws, I had damn well better watch them or else my opinions are baseless and without value. And I'd just be an arrogant blowhard if I tried to actually critique the scenes, filmography, or directing.

Not entirely true. You can know that it's part of the "torture porn" genre and critique facets of that genre. You can watch youtube clips out of context or read reviews and other articles on the topic. You can watch other works by the same people who made those movies and extrapolate from them.

Can you critique specific scenes? No. But I'm not going into that level of detail. I don't presume to talk about specific powers/feats/etc. unless I've read them and have text handy (rarely happens), but I can talk about the concept of powers or roles or hit points.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Anybody have anything to say about wizards?