Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 5413451" data-attributes="member: 85870">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: 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 PlayAnd 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.</blockquote>

Verification