(FORKED) Fire Extinguishers and Prozac - AKA Why We Care

[innerdude]

The "Flaming Out" and "WotC's Recent Insanity" threads brought to light some interesting things to me.

#1--

From jeffh on the "WotC's Recent Insanity" thread:

Logic is a set of principles for making sure you don't come to false conclusions from true premises. By itself, it is completely neutral on which rules are better.

Common sense, which it sounds like you might actually have in mind, does not suggest that simpler rules are better - at most it suggests that all else being equal, simpler rules are better. The difference between the two positions is extremely important and almost universally ignored in online discussions such as this. The former claim is obviously false, because rules that are too simple just can't do a lot of the things they could do if they were a little more complex. The latter claim is obviously true - if two rulesets accomplish your goals equally well, of course the simpler ones are better.

I'm sure some of you saw the light much earlier, but this is the first real statement I've read that has truly convinced me that there is no "logical" or "rational" way to prove that one "edition" or rule set is better than another. Unless both parties inherently agree on the premises of the argument, and more importantly, why they matter, then any real attempt at "proving" how one rule set is better than another is futile. And I don't know why I'd never thought of it that way before.

I can argue with someone all day long about why 3.x is better than 4e, but it doesn't matter if we don't inherently agree on what the purpose, rationale, social contract, and "fun" of the ruleset is supposed to be to begin with. If we don't agree on those things, then we're certainly not going to agree on why a particular rule interpretation or mechanic helps or hinders in reaching those goals.

For example, the statement that "4e's mechanics present just as many or more viable character building options as 3.x" is an objective, logically provable argument, because it can be calculated within the context of the rules--races x classes x powers x skills x feats. I'm not saying that the statement is true (or false), I'm just saying that it could objectively proven to be true (or false) based on the premise--that mechanical rules options equal viable character building options.

But regardless of whether it's "true" or "false," such an assertion doesn't "prove" or "solve" the inevitable difference of opinion of how those mechanical options make the game more "fun" or "socially interesting" in the first place. That level of "proof" is grounded in what the person likes. The fact that more people may actually like one option better than the other doesn't change the fact that it's still just opinion.

Someone who's totally enthralled by the tactical elements of 4e combat isn't looking to scratch a different itch. Someone hooked by more narrative-style systems likely isn't looking to jump into a combat-heavy system. There of course can be crossover between both styles, and sometimes we want heavy roleplaying, and sometimes we just want to roll dice and bash stuff.

But from here on out, anytime someone (including me) says "Rule system X sucks!" I am now forced to recognize what they're really saying is that "The mechanics of this ruleset don't support my desired ideals of fun as well as they support someone else's."

#2--

But here's the real kicker -- So Why Does It Really Matter What Rules We Play
And Why Do We Argue About It?

If we're forced to admit that any argument about a game's rules is ultimately pure preference, then why do we care?

I meen jeez, there's so many options out there now for RPGs, why don't we all just go on our merry way and play what we want? If you want to go retro, go retro. If you want crunch-heavy combat, go 4e. If you want "realism," find the system that works for you. Why should I/you/we feel the need to engage in "spirited debate" on which game systems need to be played?

Here's the answer: Ultimately we argue for our rules systems because we want to sway opinions about either A. the game itself, or B. the RPG hobby in general.

And the reason we want to do that is because ultimately we want as many good, fun, socially integrated, interesting roleplayers as we can possibly have, who see and view the "fun" of roleplaying the same way we do.

Seriously, is there another hobby on planet Earth where participants are willing to put up with the levels of douche baggery that RPG players are, because our hobby is so niche that the choice is often to play with misanthropes, or not play at all?

If we argue about stuff, it's because we want better rules and better systems. And the reason we want "better" rules and systems is because secretly, deep down, I think we all hope that if we can FIND THE PERFECT RPG SYSTEM, one that appeals to a broad range of people, that can be both mechanically interesting and socially enjoyable, that our chosen hobby will GO MAINSTREAM, and our options and opportunities for gaming will increase exponentially.

Of course, some will pooh-pooh the idea by saying, "Well, of course RPGs are never going to go mainstream, idiot." But that's not the point. The point is that we should (rightly) want our hobby to expand. And if we argue about it, it's because it's an attempt, however misguided, to affect the outcome of the hobby's future.

And if this is the case, I shouldn't bag on 4e as hard as I have in the past. In fact, I should want every edition of EVERY RPG to succeed as much as possible, because even if players start in 4e, they're either going to move on to something else, or they're going to stay with it, BUT AT LEAST THEY'VE STARTED PLAYING RPGs. And if they choose to stay with 4e, it's no sweat off my back, because it means they're probably interested in a game style that's probably not what I'm looking for anyway, so more power to them. All I can do is show those who are looking for something different/better some alternatives.

And the more of each we have, the more our hobby grows.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I'm sure some of you saw the light much earlier, but this is the first real statement I've read that has truly convinced me that there is no "logical" or "rational" way to prove that one "edition" or rule set is better than another.

Exactly right. It's all subjective, and very much a matter of preference. What I like in an RPG and what you like may be two totally different things.

Think of RPGs as cars. They're designed to get you from here to there. I may like a Dodge, and you may prefer a Ford. Does it mean one is better than another? Overall, not really. They both get you from here to there. It's just two different engines driving the way.

But here's the real kicker -- So Why Does It Really Matter What Rules We Play
And Why Do We Argue About It?

Because we, as human beings, are flawed creatures. We need to know that what we believe is right, and are not as accepting of the idea that other game systems may be right too. Plus, humans love to argue.

Seriously, is there another hobby on planet Earth where participants are willing to put up with the levels of douche baggery that RPG players are, because our hobby is so niche that the choice is often to play with misanthropes, or not play at all?

Look at sports fans. They will argue for hours over the validity of their chosen team. In the end, it's just a bunch of grown-ups on the field trying to get a ball from one end of the field into the goal at the other end of the field (which covers most sports). It seems silly to me, yet some folks take this sort of thing very seriously.

At our worst, we are just vocal about our opinions. Some other hobbies go much deeper. Again, take sports. People have gotten violent over sports in the past. Heck, a classmate of mine in high school threatened physical harm on me if I didn't start playing ball better (not as if I wasn't trying my best).

If you want to go beyond hobbies, people will argue and fight over anything they believe in passionately. Religion, politics, sports...all of these and more are reason enough for people to fight other people. Why is it, then, so hard for us as human beings to just "live and let live." Why do we feel the need to be "right" and to "win" all the time?

Unfortunately, so long as there is more than one flavor of RPG, arguments will go on. I try to ignore them and focus on fun things. I think the quote in my sig says it all.

 

[samursus]

You know why I like this thread? Because I recently finished reading the Original, and came away thinking "this is crazy... look at all these people trying to convince each other that their perspective is the "correct" one...".

I mean, obviously, mine is the only one that makes sense

 

[Dice4Hire]

I officially ban everyone in this thread from internet forums for life for being reasonable.

 

[innerdude]

I officially ban everyone in this thread from internet forums for life for being reasonable.

LOL, well, I don't know if I'd go that far. I'm still pretty opinionated, and will stand up for my type of RPG "fun" when the need arises.

But I'm pretty well over the senseless rage of "I can't believe anyone would EVER want to play 4e!!!! It's T3H SuXoRzZZZ!" It's obvious that the game has enough traction that some people really enjoy its gameplay tenets, and I should respect that.

It doesn't mean I want to participate heavily in 4e gameplay, or that I won't nudge/suggest that they might have more fun trying a different approach. And to a certain extent, it may actually be a good thing, because when I learn that someone/a group is really into 4e, it's often a sign that their taste in gameplay style probably isn't going to mesh with what I'm looking for.

But even then I've become a lot more open to it. For example, two nights ago I saw the 4e Essentials Red Box in a hobby store and seriously thought to myself, "Really? Only 20 bucks? It might be worth it just to check it out."

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Things you enjoy own, 420 do things you like erry day.

 

[Nifft]

But here's the real kicker -- So Why Does It Really Matter What Rules We Play
And Why Do We Argue About It?

If we're forced to admit that any argument about a game's rules is ultimately pure preference, then why do we care?

Three reasons:

1/ To figure out our own preferences. People suck at introspection. Being forced to defend your position is an excellent way to gain insight into your position.

2/ To expand the mindshare of our peer group. More people playing MY game = more options for ME. Arguing has not been proved to accomplish this, but why risk it?

3/ Because it feels good to win, even if it's just an argument against some monkey on the internet.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Umbran]

But here's the real kicker -- So Why Does It Really Matter What Rules We Play
And Why Do We Argue About It?

If we're forced to admit that any argument about a game's rules is ultimately pure preference, then why do we care?

Discussion requires analysis, and analysis leads to understanding. We discuss because we want to understand, and dialectic is a time-proven way to come to understanding.

We argue because:

1) We forget that we are here to find Understanding, and we allow our egos to get wrapped up into the process, or

2) We entered into the discussion with the (perhaps arrogant) idea that we were here to teach others, rather than to gain understanding ourselves.

There may be a few who are out there to Change The World, but my observations suggests that this sort is rare compared to the other two. There are also some folks who just want to be big jerks, but they are likewise rare.

 

[BryonD]

But here's the real kicker -- So Why Does It Really Matter What Rules We Play
And Why Do We Argue About It?

If we're forced to admit that any argument about a game's rules is ultimately pure preference, then why do we care?

It most certainly is pure preference. And I don't care what other people play.

But there are still plenty of aspects well worthy of debate. (or at least fun to debate)

I find it very interesting that so many people want to claim that difference in taste between otherwise equivalent games is the sum total if the issue.
To me it is very much a matter of difference in tastes for radically different games. Clearly the realm of RPGs is vast and yet virtually all games that can be fairly called RPGs share elements that would equate them as unlike Monopoly. But, it remains true that within the realm of RPGs there are distinctions so great that a fan of one may find another so off-target that it may as well be akin to Monopoly.

It is also of some importance how the brand D&D is doing. I don't claim the hobby lives and dies by it. But it is certainly important. And while tastes are subjective, the economic impact of how broad a net a ruleset embraces is more of an objective matter. (Objective not implying that the details are readily observed).

And, it is fun. I care about Politics too much to really have fun arguing it.

 

[innerdude]

Didn't mean to resurrect a this thread from the dead, but I had one additional thought to add:

Another reason we argue about our rule systems--ESPECIALLY D&D--is because if the flagship RPG product is many players' "gateway drug," if it's not "good," or promoting our brand of "fun," we're worried that it will actually contract the hobby, not expand it.

Seriously, at its core, isn't this the real reason we argue about 4e so much? We're worried that it will be perceived as the "standard" RPG experience--and if it turns off a lot of people who don't know anything different, we actually may lose future players as a result.

"Yeah, I tried Game X, but it was kinda lame."

Same reason that bad players and GMs need to be ruthlessly rehabilitated--because they're driving players from the game we love, players that could be making our games more awesome.