Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4118545" data-attributes="member: 22779">It's late and I'm off to bed.  I have zero problem with people making specific complaints about a system.  That's never, ever been an issue.  Take the 1-2-1 issue.  There is a very real issue there - the change really does introduce a greater degree of inaccuracy to the battle map.  You can't really argue that because it's true.  1-2-1 is mathematically more correct that 1-1-1.  Fine.  Now, the arguement comes down to whether or not you can accept the greater level of inaccuracy.  That's a personal opinion and no one is really wrong.But, to stand up and say, "My person preference is X, 4e doesn't support X, therefore 4e is a bad system" is ludicrous.  And, unfortunately, it's something we've seen for years.  Each and ever edition war is identical in this.  Someone says something about an edition and how another edition does/did it better.  Then the fight is on.This is no different.  It's edition war with a fake mustache and funny glasses.  People keep demanding that their personal playstyles somehow should automatically be catered to without giving the slightest thought to the idea that maybe, just maybe, they are out of step with how most people play.Take the issue of simulationism vs gamism.  That's been bandied about on the boards quite a lot for a while.  Yet, in all of that, not once have I seen someone step back and say why gamism gets the nod.  The answer's not complicated.Gamism is less work.Take a group of six.  Two are strongly simulationist, two are on the fence and two are strongly gamist.  Now, in any given situation, the sim players want detailed mechanics that will allow the reality of that situation to be played out.  The gamists will want mechanics that work and that's about it.  The fence sitters don't really care.Let's take a specific example - naval combat.  Two ships, the PC's ship and a pirate ship are at sea and have spotted each other.  The sim players will want a system that accounts for all the major variables - wind speed, ship type, weapon types, crew, weather, etc.  The gamist players just want to get to the resolution.  So, it's up to the fence sitters to pick the system to use.So, the fence sitters have the choice, spend several hours going through a detailed simulation of a ship battle, or spend fifteen minutes doing a gamist resolution.  It's not exactly rocket science to figure out which one they're going to pick.  They're going to go for the soft option because it's less work for the same amount of fun.  That's why the rules have shifted to a gamist approach.  It's not because they want to cater to the gamist players.  It's because the designers realize that it's easier to cater to the fence sitters by not forcing them to do all that extra work.  In KM's strangler example, the fence sitters wouldn't bother trying to use a human shield in either set up.  It's too much work to try to go through all the different feats and character options to make a character that can actually use human shields.  In the second case, they don't have that option at all.But, at the end of the day, they don't care.  They weren't going to choose it anyway.  So, the gamist is happy because he has mechanics that work.  The fence sitter is happier because he's not being forced to do extra work.  As for the sim players, well, pleasing 2/3rds of your crowd is just good design.That means that the sim player may be unhappy, but, it doesn't mean that the mechanics are bad.</blockquote>

Verification