How Does "The Rules Aren't Physics" Fix Anything?

[D'karr]

Or not. I think our personal styles (both as players and DMs) vary probably a lot -- at least "in practise" (at the table). What I think is both funny and weird that a lot of the "pro-4E" people used to openly criticize a lot of the design decisions some months ago, until, apparently, they gave up and entrenched themselves firmly in the pro-4E camp. It's almost as if they said to themselves: "My opinions do not matter -- the change is coming, and I have to adapt. In fact, I *have* to *LOVE* the game, no matter what. It just has to be the GREATEST, BESTEST edition ever, and I have to defend it, because I have no alternative. I cannot play 3E anymore, because it won't be supported by WoTC, and that would kill my game!". I'm not trying to be snarky or insult anyone -- that's my honest observation based on how so many people who used to criticize 4E seem now to *love* those same things they clamored against. Why the sudden change in attitude? And the worst part is that some posters now go to any lengths in defending those changes even without any reasonable arguments backing their claims. It's the same phrases I keep hearing: "You're just afraid of change and fail to see this new mechanic's superiority!" or "It seems that you lack the imagination to play 4E, so stick with 3E".

I'm sorry but you obviously don't understand, your opinions do not matter.

4e is the GREATEST, BESTEST edition ever, I must defend it.

I *LOVE* the game.

You're just afraid of change and fail to see the superiority of the new mechanics. It seems you lack the imagination to play 4e.

 

[Cadfan]

Ah yes, "some people." Its always great to attribute things to "some people" because then everyone will think, "I remember pro 4e people saying X, and now I see pro 4e people saying Not-X, so they must be the same people if Primal says so, right?" and since no one can categorically show that no 4e people ever have switched positions, no one can actually prove you wrong.

 

[D'karr]

I won't ascribe motives to anyone on these boards, but I know for a fact (internet facts) that there are a majority of people (about 6) that simply get into these arguments to increase their post count. Because I KNOW that they really love 4e. Since I'm such a tool, I want to increase mine too.

I'm looking at you 4e haters.

 

[Professor Phobos]

Just for the record, 4e is the only edition of D&D I'll have ever owned (just preordered) I am neither familiar with nor a fan of 3rd. I mean I'm playing in a game right now, but the rest of the group basically walks me through character generation and combat.

I didn't hate 3rd with the fiery intensity I thought I would. I only hate maybe 9/10ths of it. This told me that I might like 4th, so I looked into it and took the gamble that I'd enjoy it enough to justify a pre-order.

More importantly, I find I like the "D&D Game" (as I get in 3rd, right now) so it's a niche in my gaming library I feel I should feel (which I never expected). 4th looks like it will handle it to a degree more conducive to my tastes than 3rd.

In other words, I am one of those new people 4th is hopefully going to attract. I am not switching, upgrading, downgrading or anything of the sort.

 

[Ourph]

Every negative consequence of play you have described is resolved by not playing with anal-retentive deliberately obtuse jerks.

I think you just invented Hong's 4th Law of Gamerdom.

 

[The Little Raven]

I'm not trying to be snarky or insult anyone -- that's my honest observation based on how so many people who used to criticize 4E seem now to *love* those same things they clamored against.

You don't mean to insult them, but you suggest that their change of heart is merely giving up free-will to marketing, instead of genuinely having changed their minds based on things they've seen?

Would you find it insulting if I said that you don't actually like 3e, you're just so afraid of change and having to learn new things that you'd reject a good game simply because it's not in your pre-defined comfort zone?

 

[Andor]

Nice try at a defense, but ultimately unsuccessful. All you've proven so far is that good ad libbing is superior to bad ad libbing.

You can't use a good made up rule as an example of a good imaginarily codified rule and set it in opposition to a bad made up rule. It simply does not compute.

I'm not trying to 'prove' anything. It's not possible to prove that one playstyle is superior to another. It's a subjective subject.

I am trying to clearly explain why I feel that treating the rules as a consistant and internally visible part of the setting leads to a more enjoyable game for me. The converse of this is that a rule that violates the internal logic of the game world detracts from the feel of the game.

As an exaggerated example if we are trying to play a swashbuckling game but the rules forbid the use of off hand parry weapons it's a pretty poor portrayal of several fencing styles like Florentine and thus detracts from the feel of the game.

 

[Stoat]

Rule of Thumb:

Anyone who begins a sentence with "I'm not trying to insult you . . ."

Is trying to insult you.

 

[robertliguori]

Rule of Thumb:

Anyone who begins a sentence with "I'm not trying to insult you . . ."

Is trying to insult you.

Corollary: If you read something that begins with "I'm not trying to insult you" and contains no ", but...", you should maintain the benefit of the doubt that the author isn't trying to insult you.

If you write something that begins "I'm not trying to insult you...", you should probably rewrite whatever it was so that no clarification is necessary.

 

[pemerton]

I just want a game which makes sense and doesn't require that the players turn of their brains in order to overlook all the gaping holes it has.

Do you mean "game" here, or "gameworld"?

By all accounts the 4e rules have no obvious holes, given the typical sort of RPG one might try to play using D&D as one's system. So no brain turn-off required in that respect.

Provided that the GM and players are half-sensible, they can ensure that the narration of the gameworld which they engage in makes sense and doesn't have any gaping holes. So no brain turn-off is required simply because the rules move from a simulationist approach towards a "distribution of narrative control" approach.

If you choose to interpret the relationship between non-simulationist mechanics, and the gameworld, in a way that does not make sense for such mechanics, that is your choice. Interpret otherwise and the problem will disappear.