[forked thread] What constitutes an edition war?

[Gorgoroth]

I like PF

and 3.5 for the powerful magic spells that you know, you can actually use outside of combat and doesn't cost 5000gp (like rituals), but I find 4e martial classes way more fun for exactly the opposite reasons. In PF they aren't as dull with full round option or nothing, but 4e is still better for the power curve of martial guys.

although multi-attacking fighters in 3.5/PF are huge damage dealers, my PF cleric does insane damage, flies around, can teleport, fight in melee pretty well, throw his axe 11 times a day with my wis mod to-hit. And has the second highest AC and the highest base speed in the party : While in heavy armor. Most days I have 40-60 speed, as a dwarf.

Does what I just wrote mean I'm starting a war? nah, I like both games, and I will post my mind since I don't believe in coloring safely in the lines. Why can't I say why I like different things for different reasons? I hardly care if someone else loves or hates this or that edition, but I will listen to well-reasoned arguments and ponder on them (hopefully to improve my builds)

 

[Umbran]

Both of us are right. That is my point. When it comes to opinions on what you like or dislike about an RPG or even a soda there is no wrong answer.

Mostly. Humans (ALL of us), have a strong tendency to form opinions, and rationalize support for them after the fact. We are strongly influenced by many things that are not necessarily rational or obvious. For example, how the new edition was presented to the public could have influenced some folks to be pro- or anti- before they ever saw the actual product.

So, when asked if you like or dislike something, there is no wrong answer.

When asked why you dislike something, maybe the answer you give isn't as correct as you think. Our own minds occasionally mislead us. Maybe you dislike a thing because of it intrinsic qualities, or maybe you dislike it for other reasons that even you don't consciously recognize.

People out on the internet are not in a good position to say which it is, though. We cannot tell you for certain whether a person's stated reasons are accurate, and we aren't in a position to divine the truth. So, for the vast majority of cases we should take a person's word for it, accepting that the know themselves better than we do.

 

[DoctorNick]

and 3.5 for the powerful magic spells that you know, you can actually use outside of combat and doesn't cost
5000gp (like rituals),

This is what I'm talking about when I say an opinion is wrong. All powers in 4e can be used outside of combat. All of them can have "objects" as targets per the DMG. Rituals also exist but they aren't the only options for out of combat spells. Not only that (and I realize I'm on thin ice with this argument but hear me out) who here that plays a previous version of D&D doesn't houserule? It's a relatively minor houserule to lower (or remove) the cost of many rituals. Much more minor than a lot of the stuff I saw during the good old days.

I realize that the fact you can houserule is sort of stormwindesque but my point isn't that the ritual system is good (it's not) just that it's telling that many of you are willing to fix issues with older systems and not with the new one.

I was talking about salsa in direct reference to the "Gamist" stuff. I believe that every version of D&D is just as "Gamist" as every other version. The gamism is the salsa. Can you prove to me otherwise?

Also, thanks for making me talk about GNS.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

The gamism is the salsa.

I would probably buy a t-shirt with this written on the front.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I was talking about salsa in direct reference to the "Gamist" stuff. I believe that every version of D&D is just as "Gamist" as every other version. The gamism is the salsa. Can you prove to me otherwise?

Nope. In fact, you're correct.

You do believe that every version of D&D is just as "Gamist" as every other version.

I do not believe this. I have my reasons, as I'm sure you have yours.

 

[billd91]

I was talking about salsa in direct reference to the "Gamist" stuff. I believe that every version of D&D is just as "Gamist" as every other version. The gamism is the salsa. Can you prove to me otherwise?

Can you prove that every edition is every bit as gamist as ever other edition? That looks, to me, like an unsupported assertion.

Gamism (or simulationism or narrativism) isn't the salsa. It's an ingredient. It's an ingredient the game as much as lime juice, fresh tomatoes, red onions, and hot peppers are ingredients of the salsa. The taste of the salsa will depend on how those ingredients (and others) are prepared and mixed. The same is true for the ingredients of a game.

If I were to compare multiclassing rules in 3x and 4e, the ones in 4e that don't require a PC to build up the fundamentals of the second class but allow them to pick up a high level power (like a fighter multiclassing as a wizard and picking up a later power like 9th level daily without mastering lower level wizard powers other than an at will) are more gamist than the 3x rules. The 3x rules won't allow the multiclassed character to have those higher powers without mastering lower level ones all the way up. They have more simulationist elements, changing the way the game plays and feels... and tastes. Every edition is not just as gamist as every other edition. Each one blends gamist, simulationist, and narrativist elements a bit differently.

 

[Umbran]

Gamism (or simulationism or narrativism) isn't the salsa. It's an ingredient.

Revealing what I think of GNS theory here, so take what follows only as personal opinion: Gamism (or simulationism, or narrativism) is a thing we can see in a game if we hold up a grid of G/N/S axes to the game after it is designed. They are qualities we can reveal by analysis, not things we can directly add to a game.

If you hold up the grid of "The Breakdown of RPG Players" to a game, you will see no gamism at all, because "gamism" doesn't exist in that breakdown. You'll instead see focus on Strategy vs tactics, and combat vs story. If you hold up another grid, you'll see other qualities revealed.

G/N/S are not "ingredients", like flour and milk and eggs. A designer cannot add "gamism" to his design - he can add mechanics that are fun from a game-player's point of view, and the result might be gamism. Much like we cannot add "fluffiness" to cookies - we can put butter and sugar to a bowl, beat them, and thus have some fluffiness in our cookies.

IMHO, anyway.

 

[DoctorNick]

Can you prove that every edition is every bit as gamist as ever other edition? That looks, to me, like an unsupported assertion.

Gamism (or simulationism or narrativism) isn't the salsa. It's an ingredient.

I would like to respectfully say that you're not the one making the analogy.

Every edition is not just as gamist as every other edition. Each one blends gamist, simulationist, and narrativist elements a bit differently.

I would like to respectfully say that I don't buy GNS theory. Just because some guys got together on the internet and redefined some vague terms to try and describe some play styles doesn't mean that a) it's gospel and b) it's applicable to system design at all.

As for proof? They're all games. All of them. They all involve rolling dice and doing some arithmetic. (a very disassociated action I might add)

They are all narativist as well. They all involve creating narrative.

None of them "simulates" anything except the Dungeons and Dragons genre. Which I guess could be described as Gonzo medieval spelunking with magic.

 

[billd91]

I would say that most of the GNS theorizing is masturbatory babble, however, there are elements of it that I find useful. There are game mechanics that are more gamist than simulationist (in the sense that they dispense with simulating anything other than something that may be done in a game), more simulationist than narrativist (in that they simulate the organic development of a character's ability than direct the flow of the story), and so on. A game's designers can deliberately go one direction more than another and I do believe 4e dispenses with simulationist elements of previous editions in favor of the way the designers wanted the game to play out on the map (diagonals counting the same as movement along straight square lines). Thus, on certain topics, it's more gamist than other editions.

 

[Jimlock]

One interesting fact about edition war is this:



Who are the people who voice a stronger opinion against a certain edition?

If we take a look around we'll see how, for example, with 4e it's mostly D&D

veterans who say this and that.

Do you see someone at the age of 16 to 20-something bitching about 4e?

Personally, I don't.

What does that prove?

"The Older the Wiser" ? NO

...not necessarily anyway....

It only proves how emotional we really are about a game/hobby we like and love.

Most, if not all of us, have stronger ties with the edition we learned to play with,

when we didn't really know every monster in the MM by heart, and when every new encounter,

every beast and every twist was exciting, electrifying and thrilling.

As the years go by, new products see the face of the gaming world, and new editions come to

"update" what we love so much. Now, when this new "stuff" comes out, how objective are we really?

How capable are we of putting aside our emotions so as to judge a "change" in something that; because

we love it so much, we are incapable to see the reasons for a change... because it was "perfect" for us?

As I said above, what made it for ME, was 2nd edition, no matter what one says,

this is my "best' edition so far...

Am I capable of seeing flaws in my beloved edition?

Sure, I can see.... some. But my judgement is so suppressed by my emotions,

that I will never agree to EVERY argument.

Perhaps, deed inside me, I know better than what I actually say and write... and I probably won't admit it,

even to myself.

How can we blame some new gamer for liking, perhaps, the ONLY edition he has ever known?

Surely, I can tell you that he feels just like you feel, when one bitches about the edition, or whatever you treasure most.

Perhaps he feels the exact same way, the first players felt 30 years ago, when D&D was considered a "spawn

of the devil".

Sounds a bit "too much"? Take a second and think about it...

My father used to tell me: "Nahhh, you kids don't know how to live!!!! Back in the days when i was young....."

We 've all heard that one!

That's to say how objective we really are, about things we like, and about all the things that come after that.


That doesn't mean that wisdom doesn't count. Of course it does, and am sure that most Vets make some very good points

when it comes to comparing yesterday to today.

As to how objective this judgement really is... is really beyond me...


I bitch about kids playing WOW, saying how stupidly they waist hours in front of their screens...

And me? Oh... I played "super wonder boy" in front of my AMSTRAD-6128... how superior am I....

ANd my father? He probably played pool at the time... or something of the sort...

And my grandfather? He probably didn't even have time to play anything...

How do I know I do "the right thing"?




Sure, if we get down to talking about how video games have a negative effect on tabletop RPGS,

I'm certain that I will come up with some very good points. And I'm not gonna say them

because I want to "win" the argument. I'll say what I'll say because I really believe in it....

I'll talk out of experience, I'll be logical, I'll be compassionate towards the human evolution and I 'll also

be expressing my beliefs on the deterioration of the human species...

but at the same time I'll be speaking as one man born at a certain time, bearing all the faults and prejudices of the

age I was born in...

I will answer all your questions, I 'll satisfy your inquires the best way I can,

yet if you ask me: "Which part of all this is based on emotion, and which part is based on logic?"

Well, I will NEVER know the answer to that one.....





“What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.”

Pericles