Mearls: Abilities as the core?

[Crazy Jerome]

And saying "you are wrong" isn't helpful.

Saying, "Why, specifically, do feel X?" works quite a bit better. They can tell you thing Y, and then you can illustrate (bringing them along for the ride) that perhaps thing X and thing Y aren't always connected like that.

Maybe they get it, maybe they don't, but, man, the conversation is a lot better than two sides shouting at each other, neither one actually listening, since they assume they're right.

Oh, I basically agree with you here, too. I'll go you one further, though, and note that for something like that to work, it typically needs to be limited to a few particpants that are like-minded on how it should be handled. And you need some sign of good faith from all participants.

If you can't refuse partcipationg to those demonstrating a desire to win or merely stir things up, it gets really difficult. Especially, since it is pretty rare to know for sure that those motivations are present.

 

[Balesir]

Exactly. You think those people are wrong. And until you can see it from their side, telling them the various ways in which they are wrong isn't going to make them suddenly realize they were wrong all along, any more than a different opinion is going to change your mind.

If you see it as unreasonable, you've already failed the conversation. Once you think you're dealing with an unreasonable person, you loose the capacity for empathy and understanding that a good conversation has.

If you want to engage in constructive conversation, you must assume the other person is reasonable deep down, even if they're acting pretty unreasonable at the moment. Of course, the option always exists just to ignore it instead.

What you are enjoining is tolerance, which is laudable - tolerance is pretty clearly a good thing. But let's be clear; we tolerate what we disapprove of. You can't tolerate what you approve of - that would be nonsensical.

With that in mind, tolerance requires respect for others as reasonable people and an attempt to understand their point of view. Well, I can well understand that particular points in the combat system of a given edition, say, will cause some people to feel distaste. I can perfectly well comprehend (even if I do not share) their disapproval of general features of the rules or systems. But I cannot, with the best will in the world, see the combat system of 4E (for example) as "pretty shoddy" without some further explanation. "Pretty shoddy" is a claim to poor quality against some sort of objective standard; without some sort of supporting evidence it's not a claim I am going to be able to accept.

These people, presumably, were playing D&D just fine up to the point where some feature of the new edition grew insufferable for them. Thus, they see the game has having changed away from a model that they enjoyed. So they would like to see it change back.

But no-one has "changed it away" - 3.X is still what it always was, and Pathfinder appears to be pretty similar in most of the ways people who prefer 3.X find important. The business entity that originally made 3.X has simply made a different game, and one which fills a design space previously uncatered for. Now, if you were to argue that their failure to support the previous editions and strident deprecation of those earlier editions was somewhat foolhardy and distasteful, I would agree with you - but I still wouldn't see how 4E had "changed D&D" save by adding to it.

Because plenty of games are around for those people who WANT those changes, but, before those changes, D&D was NOT that game (in their minds).

Actually, I don't think there are anywhere near so many games available for those who like the design features of 4E as there are for those who like 3.x/Pathfinder, but that is really a separate question. Certainly, 3.X D&D is not that game, I agree. But WotC didn't change 3.X - they made 4E. 3.X is still there, for those who prefer that sort of thing. Maybe 5E will be more like 3.X or will otherwise exclude or compromise all the elements in 4E I like; if so, so be it - I will still have 4E and will be thankful that someone catered to the need it fulfills.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What you are enjoining is tolerance, which is laudable - tolerance is pretty clearly a good thing. But let's be clear; we tolerate what we disapprove of. You can't tolerate what you approve of - that would be nonsensical.

With that in mind, tolerance requires respect for others as reasonable people and an attempt to understand their point of view. Well, I can well understand that particular points in the combat system of a given edition, say, will cause some people to feel distaste. I can perfectly well comprehend (even if I do not share) their disapproval of general features of the rules or systems. But I cannot, with the best will in the world, see the combat system of 4E (for example) as "pretty shoddy" without some further explanation. "Pretty shoddy" is a claim to poor quality against some sort of objective standard; without some sort of supporting evidence it's not a claim I am going to be able to accept.

But no-one has "changed it away" - 3.X is still what it always was, and Pathfinder appears to be pretty similar in most of the ways people who prefer 3.X find important. The business entity that originally made 3.X has simply made a different game, and one which fills a design space previously uncatered for. Now, if you were to argue that their failure to support the previous editions and strident deprecation of those earlier editions was somewhat foolhardy and distasteful, I would agree with you - but I still wouldn't see how 4E had "changed D&D" save by adding to it.

Actually, I don't think there are anywhere near so many games available for those who like the design features of 4E as there are for those who like 3.x/Pathfinder, but that is really a separate question. Certainly, 3.X D&D is not that game, I agree. But WotC didn't change 3.X - they made 4E. 3.X is still there, for those who prefer that sort of thing. Maybe 5E will be more like 3.X or will otherwise exclude or compromise all the elements in 4E I like; if so, so be it - I will still have 4E and will be thankful that someone catered to the need it fulfills.

Aye, you've put it quite a bit better than I have. No productive discussion can happen when it is on the level of "that's shoddy!" where we're talking about a largely subjective set of perceived values. We can talk about what we like and what we don't like, and we can talk about the ways we use different games as tools to get the play experiences we desire, and we can talk about the differences between the things we want from a game. Talking about how shoddy one person's preferences are has nothing to do with any of that. Nor is it in any way shape or form a respectful way to speak on that kind of subject.

Anyway, enough of all that. IMO 4e is built on the concept that skills represent not so much what a character has studied or techniques they use, modus operandi, but much more what sort of things they do. A character with a high Bluff and Insight is a facile liar and student of human nature. A character with a high Athletics is physical, they're the type who solves problems by physical action. I don't think stripping that away is really helpful and I think Mike missed a whole point there, or at least he hasn't touched on it yet. I've found the 4e skill system to be a really useful set of RP tools for this very reason. Whether or not you know how to play the lute is a detail. It can be an important detail if you want it to be, but it isn't something that changes any fundamental ability to accomplish things that are central to the game. So it doesn't require being bought with some pool of resources like a skill. It is simply something you add to the background of your character.