Changeover Poll

[Wulf Ratbane]

Yes, and as long as nothing else changes, it is easy to predict what the outcome of such a change would be. However, the more of the system changes, the harder it becomes to predict how much this rule affects actual gameplay.

It doesn't matter how many changes are made if any number of those changes, taken singly, are unacceptable.

A long list of mechanical changes does not necessarily mean that they will add up to be more than "the sum of the parts"-- which is what you mean when you say you can't predict what the outcome of lots of changes will be to the overall system. That's irrelevant. The mere fact that it is a long list of changes can be a disqualifier.

All I was saying is that it may be more influenced by emotion and initial impressions than by pure vulcanian logic.

If you don't like 4e, it's because you lack Reason...?

And you using the word "pet peeve" seems to imply that your dislike of these elements is not entirely rational.

Right: Disliking a game after a cursory review is an irrational decision, whereas liking a game after 120 hours of play is a rational decision.

Whether you play for 120 hours or 1 hour will not turn an emotional decision (like or dislike) into a rational one.

You're kidding yourself, Spock.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Man, if internet professors were only more valid, I could've gone without taking those stupid logic classes and simply gone here to EN World!

Except internet professors are not valid. Not even the strongest ones, like myself.

 

[Harlekin]

If you don't like 4e, it's because you lack Reason...?

I don't think I ever said that. I said that if you tried to evaluate a complicated procedure/system such as a roleplaying game based on just reading the manual you are not likely to make an entirely rational decision, whether you decide you like it or whether you decide you don't like it.

Right: Disliking a game after a cursory review is an irrational decision, whereas liking a game after 120 hours of play is a rational decision.

Whether you play for 120 hours or 1 hour will not turn an emotional decision (like or dislike) into a rational one.

You're kidding yourself, Spock.

Maybe, however I do think that evaluations based on more data are generally less emotional. Please also note that I never said or implied that a evaluation needed to go one way or the other to be "rational". A decision to reject a game after laying it for a few month is as "rational" as a decision to accept it. In fact, the jury is still out for me.

I put "rational" in quotes up there, because rational is generally used as the opposite to emotional. However, I think the rational decision is to not play a game you are set against, as overcoming any possible initial miss-evaluation is too much effort for something that is supposed to be fun. And this is probably even more true if your initial evaluations have a high probability of being correct.

 

[Roman]

I don't think liking or disliking a game is a matter of rationality. It is a matter of preference and preferences are inherently not rational (apart from perhaps their interrelation with other preferences). If you love Tieflings, that is not a rational preference. If you hate Tieflings, that is also not a rational preference. Nor is it rational or irrational to like or dislike gamist or simulationist styles of play.

I suppose where rationality could come into play is in determining how well the system meshes with your preferences that are more subtle than the presence or the absence of tieflings - preferences like simulationist or gamist playstyle (Is 'playstyle' even a word?). Even then, however, it is generally enough for long-time gamers to take look at a ruleset to see whether it matches their style of play or not. For example, I like a more simulationist and a less gamist style of play. Taking a look at 4E, I have concluded that it is less suitable to my style of play than 3E, on the basis that 4E is less simulationist and more gamist. I have not played any 4E, but this became crystal-clear from my look at the ruleset. Are you suggesting that if I actually played 4E, I would discover that it is more simulationist and less gamist than 3E? I doubt it. In fact, even if there were the possibility of that, it seems so small, that it is not in fact rational for me to invest the playing/DMing time to find out whether my initial assessment is wrong or not, since this time and money can be more valuable spent on doing other things that seem to be much closer to my preference - such as playing/DMing 3E/Pathfinder.

 

[Harlekin]

I suppose where rationality could come into play is in determining how well the system meshes with your preferences that are more subtle than the presence or the absence of tieflings - preferences like simulationist or gamist playstyle (Is 'playstyle' even a word?). Even then, however, it is generally enough for long-time gamers to take look at a ruleset to see whether it matches their style of play or not. For example, I like a more simulationist and a less gamist style of play. Taking a look at 4E, I have concluded that it is less suitable to my style of play than 3E, on the basis that 4E is less simulationist and more gamist. I have not played any 4E, but this became crystal-clear from my look at the ruleset. Are you suggesting that if I actually played 4E, I would discover that it is more simulationist and less gamist than 3E? I doubt it. In fact, even if there were the possibility of that, it seems so small, that it is not in fact rational for me to invest the playing/DMing time to find out whether my initial assessment is wrong or not, since this time and money can be more valuable spent on doing other things that seem to be much closer to my preference - such as playing/DMing 3E/Pathfinder.

The simulationist-gamist split is actually the prime example I would use. If you are interested in simulationist play, deciding between 3rd and 4th edition is like deciding whether you want to use a screwdriver or a set of pliers to drive a nail into a wall. Neither one works very well, but if you are used to using a screwdriver, the pliers will look like the silliest tool out there for that job. And vice versa.

To bring this back to D&D, D&D has always been among the most gamist systems on the market. AC,HP, classes and levels have always been elements that don't make much sense but that work darn well in a game. However, we have 20 or so years of experiences in mapping the gamisms of 1st -3rd edition D&D to some level of verisimilitude and we learned in the same time to explain all the other artifacts away or ignore them. 4th edition introduces a new set of artifacts and gamisms which we would have to get used to before we felt comfortable with them. Only then could you say if 4th or 3.x works better for the type of game you are trying to play.

But to reiterate: If you happy with 3.x, there is no reason why you should do that to yourself.

 

[xechnao]

The simulationist-gamist split is actually the prime example I would use. If you are interested in simulationist play, deciding between 3rd and 4th edition is like deciding whether you want to use a screwdriver or a set of pliers to drive a nail into a wall. Neither one works very well, but if you are used to using a screwdriver, the pliers will look like the silliest tool out there for that job. And vice versa.

To bring this back to D&D, D&D has always been among the most gamist systems on the market. AC,HP, classes and levels have always been elements that don't make much sense but that work darn well in a game. However, we have 20 or so years of experiences in mapping the gamisms of 1st -3rd edition D&D to some level of verisimilitude and we learned in the same time to explain all the other artifacts away or ignore them. 4th edition introduces a new set of artifacts and gamisms which we would have to get used to before we felt comfortable with them. Only then could you say if 4th or 3.x works better for the type of game you are trying to play.

But to reiterate: If you happy with 3.x, there is no reason why you should do that to yourself.

Classic D&D was not offending verismilitude. It just had limited options to suit what the game was all about.
The game was strategic -not tactical- and was build like this:
You have three types of units: one that could offer big solutions but had no resistance (wizard), one that could offer solutions of medium scope and had a bit more of resistance (mixed classes) and finally one with solutions of even smaller scope but higher resistance (fighter). There is also room for a fixer-patcher -one who fixes things using medium solutions and a bit of resistance (priest). It was a complete strategic game by offering objectives and consequences. 3e failed to this last part. Yet it provided a way to expand the fluff within the mechanics of the system. This seemed to beat the limits of the game and many see it as a direction towards simulationism.
4e limits things again because it inherently defines objectives and consequences by being a purely tactical game of miniatures (and it does offend verisimilitude in some aspects and cases). Yet it is a more complete design for a game than 3e was. But it is not hard for some people to see what the 4e game is about and to decide if they want to play this kind of game or not.

 

[Harlekin]

Classic D&D was not offending verismilitude. It just had limited options to suit what the game was all about.

Hey Xeno, sorry for not answering your earlier posts. I am not trying to ignore you. However, I have a hard time parsing your posts, I think this is in part because we are using terms very differently.

 

[xechnao]

Hey Xeno, sorry for not answering your earlier posts. I am not trying to ignore you. However, I have a hard time parsing your posts, I think this is in part because we are using terms very differently.

I do try to condense things here. If there is anything that needs addressing just ask. Which term or rather phrase are you talking about? Was it about the phrase you quoted? If so what bothers you there?

 

[merelycompetent]

I don't think liking or disliking a game is a matter of rationality. It is a matter of preference and preferences are inherently not rational (apart from perhaps their interrelation with other preferences). If you love Tieflings, that is not a rational preference. If you hate Tieflings, that is also not a rational preference. Nor is it rational or irrational to like or dislike gamist or simulationist styles of play.

Good! That means you can show me a rational way to convert my homebrew 3.5E campaign world, its plotlines, and all its NPCs, to 4E without having to rewrite half of it. 'Cause some of those basic mechanics changes really mess up existing NPCs, from what I've read and experimented with. I fully acknowledge that my opinions and conclusions about the level of difficulty and level of effort involved may be way off. And I eagerly await your well-reasoned, balanced, and rational solution to the problem. I also personally know another half-dozen DMs who would jump on a solution like that.

 

[xechnao]

Hey Xeno, sorry for not answering your earlier posts. I am not trying to ignore you. However, I have a hard time parsing your posts, I think this is in part because we are using terms very differently.

Ok let me have a try. If your issue is with HPs and AC these were mechanic means of tracking resistance. In this sense it does not offend verisimilitude. But it can offend it when it connects with feats that track and differentiate specific toe to toe maneuvers. But 3e was open ended so we can try to ignore this -3e was not even a complete game (or if it was, it was flawed due to failed balances). 4e OTOH is not open ended and as a game it is complete and closed and its failures in this aspect of verisimilitude offense are less ignorable.