Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6228120" data-attributes="member: 22779">The problem, N'raac, is that you're comparing apples to oranges.&nbsp; Sure, Rembrandt isn't better than Picasso, but, since they don't actually share the same design space (other than being paintings), they cannot really be compared.&nbsp; OTOH, if I tried to paint in Picasso's style, I'm pretty sure that everyone would say that his paintings are better than mine.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because he is far, far more technically accomplished than I am, for one.&nbsp; There are other elements, for sure, but, technique is certainly something that we can use to judge.Same goes for RPG's.&nbsp; They are games.&nbsp; As much as people want to pretend that they aren't, they still are.&nbsp; And games have math, like it or not.&nbsp; If it has math, then we can apply systematic changes to the math to create better rules.&nbsp; And, yes, I do say better.&nbsp; A 1st level thief with a 15% chance to open locks is not as good of a rule as a 1st level rogue with an Open Locks of +8.&nbsp; Well, if you never played earlier editions, never paid any attention to the criticisms made the last time the editions changed (from AD&amp;D to 3e) then why would you specifically call out the 4e changeover as a &quot;new&quot; time to see these criticisms and then paint it as an edition warrior calling for 4e players?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6228120, member: 22779"] The problem, N'raac, is that you're comparing apples to oranges. Sure, Rembrandt isn't better than Picasso, but, since they don't actually share the same design space (other than being paintings), they cannot really be compared. OTOH, if I tried to paint in Picasso's style, I'm pretty sure that everyone would say that his paintings are better than mine. Why? Because he is far, far more technically accomplished than I am, for one. There are other elements, for sure, but, technique is certainly something that we can use to judge. Same goes for RPG's. They are games. As much as people want to pretend that they aren't, they still are. And games have math, like it or not. If it has math, then we can apply systematic changes to the math to create better rules. And, yes, I do say better. A 1st level thief with a 15% chance to open locks is not as good of a rule as a 1st level rogue with an Open Locks of +8. Well, if you never played earlier editions, never paid any attention to the criticisms made the last time the editions changed (from AD&D to 3e) then why would you specifically call out the 4e changeover as a "new" time to see these criticisms and then paint it as an edition warrior calling for 4e players? [/QUOTE]

Verification