Mearls: Abilities as the core?

[CuRoi]

One of the characteristic, unreasonable debating tactics deployed by some of the more virulent 4E bashers has been to switch freely between emotive feeling and argument, and then whichever way they are answered, to switch to the other. As to why, I could make several guesses, but I don't think that would be wise, except to say that many reasons why are a lot more benign than one would first think. And from the receiving end, it really doesn't matter why. If it happens enough, you feel rather annoyed. See, we have feelings too.

Great post! I was relatively new here a few months ago and got ensared in several "version" debates. Honestly, I can't say whether I was being "emotive" or "logical", however I'm sure I might have appeared emotive more than a few times simply because I was new to the board, had not seen what a pervasive issue this whole thing was, and probably reacted pretty incredulously to the entrenched attitudes that have developed around the whole thing.

I'm a 2e / 3e player and mostly would like to stick to discussing those versions. However, I see a lot of value in some of the 4e approaches even though I don't want to play that version. So originally I felt discussing all flavors of DnD just seemed to be the thing to do. Looking for common ground with other players over what they disliked and liked about each version. Sadly, it just can't be that simple.

I'm a fan and critic of all versions I suppose. I'm even a fan of a good debate. I'm even someone who is a bit more intuitive/emotive maybe more than logical (more storyteller and less mathematician) so I can give people leeway for getting defensive or too offensive. I also try to make it clear when I am giving an opinion based on just what I like about an RPG as opposed to some objective measure (and it's funny how often people want to argue about that.) What I can't give people leeway for is dragging me into an unproductive argument.

Lot's of times people think a debate means you pick a position and cling to it come hell or high water. That's when feelings get hurt IMO. They forget that sometimes people lose, sometimes people win, and both sides need to be paying attention cause they should both learn something new and useful in the end.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am not saying anyone is WRONG. But look at what you've said, "pretty shoddy" ain't exactly either accurate in my opinion nor is it constructive. Actually I think the way these things were designed in 4e was a very conscious calculated game design decision, elegant, and effective.

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.

Maybe not everyone is going to get it, but no that kind of thing isn't 'reasonable'.

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.

OK, the people saying this would like a game that doesn't involve the various "X's" - fair enough, there are plenty around, take your pick. But to then take this other game, that several folk are happily playing as it is, and say "that should be changed into the game I want to play" just gives me a "WTF?!?" moment.

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.

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).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.



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.

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

No, no, don't confuse other people being unreasonable for ME being unreasonable. You think I'm telling someone they can't be right (IE have their own opinion?) lol. I'm not the guy walking all over other people's opinion of anything, it is about what I'm GETTING in return.

And in any case all I want is just exactly what I am giving. I'm not off trashing on other people's favorite games here. I've never said things like 'shoddy' lol.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And in any case all I want is just exactly what I am giving. I'm not off trashing on other people's favorite games here. I've never said things like 'shoddy' lol.

And if you want to talk about why I think that, and why others might think that, and come to an actual understanding of some of the perceived flaws of 4e (and maybe even why I play two campaigns of it weekly despite its noncombat resolution systems!), I'd welcome the conversation.

But step #1 in any constructive conversation is mutual respect.

And assuming that I'm being unreasonable is demonstrating a lack of respect. Assuming that your opinion is the only reasonable one is demonstrating a lack of respect. Dismissively laughing at people is demonstrating a lack of respect.

And you can't force others to show you respect.

You can only hope to earn it by showing that respect, regardless of if you "get anything out of it" or not.

So if your reaction to me calling the 4e noncombat rules shoddy is to laugh and be dismissive and assume a defensive position (rather than, perhaps, understanding why I think that), I'm not sure that mutual respect has much of a chance to blossom.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Exactly. You think those people are wrong...

No, I think that they have combined two separate things into one package, not logically, and gotten too invested in the whole thing being right or wrong. The particulars may or may not be right, but the combination is always wrong. You get exactly something like this:

1. I feel X.
2. This is because of thing Y.
3. X always goes with Y.

Then if you say, "Hey, Y didn't happen with me," they respond, "How dare you challenge my feeling!" But you didn't challenge their feeling. You said the relationship between X and Y was not always as they imagined it. However, since they have already decided that the thing and the feeling go together, any challenge to any part of the structure is a challenge to all of it.

It is usually a lot more complicated than that in the expression, of course.

In some people, there can be a psychological basis for this. Due to not trusting their feelings, people began to think of feelings as either "true" or "false". (They aren't; they are just feelings.) They don't see that this always has the potential to "invalidate" feelings improperly. If the related "fact" Y gets conclusively disproved, suddenly, you aren't "allowed" to feel X anymore. But I am not a trained person in this respect, and have no idea whatsoever how common it is, much less the scope of the causes.

Now, if you want to say that trying to point this out, in the specific or the general, is a waste of time--then I have to agree that the evidence is mainly on your side. However, as the people that I have known personally who have thrown this off have felt very "liberated," it would seem to be worth the effort.

 

[BryonD]

I'm not all that interested in the preferences and experiences of the market as a whole.

Fair enough, but the root of this thread is being interpreted as Mearls discussing what makes D&D the popular and enduring concept. This thread has more of a market zeitgeist to it than a "what 4E fans love about it" vibe. I'm sure there are plenty of those in the 4E forum and I'm happy to stay out of those.

But is this the great case against 4e? That it's a shallow vehicle for roleplaying because its action resolution mechanics, and the encounter building guidelines that are heavily integrated with those mechanics, presuppose that a 1st level wizard and a 30th level barbarian won't find themselves in the same party facing the same challenge? And, as a result, take the view that a +15 skill bonus typically means something different for a high level PC than for a low level one?

Isn't that more than a little bit of a straw man built on an absurd example?

 

[I'm A Banana]

No, I think that they have combined two separate things into one package, not logically, and gotten too invested in the whole thing being right or wrong.

I was referring to AbdulAlhazred's post, not yours.

As for yours, I basically agree.

the combination is always wrong

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.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And if you want to talk about why I think that, and why others might think that, and come to an actual understanding of some of the perceived flaws of 4e (and maybe even why I play two campaigns of it weekly despite its noncombat resolution systems!), I'd welcome the conversation.

But step #1 in any constructive conversation is mutual respect.

And assuming that I'm being unreasonable is demonstrating a lack of respect. Assuming that your opinion is the only reasonable one is demonstrating a lack of respect. Dismissively laughing at people is demonstrating a lack of respect.

And you can't force others to show you respect.

You can only hope to earn it by showing that respect, regardless of if you "get anything out of it" or not.

So if your reaction to me calling the 4e noncombat rules shoddy is to laugh and be dismissive and assume a defensive position (rather than, perhaps, understanding why I think that), I'm not sure that mutual respect has much of a chance to blossom.

You said shoddy. I take it like "Oh, someone would have to be stupid to like something shoddy", now maybe you don't quite get how that comes across, but there is a very big disconnect where you are trying to take some kind of moral high ground and lecture me about respect, lol. I don't generally think you're unreasonable, and I often agree with things you say. I think you want to put the shoe on the other foot and see how it fits.

 

[JamesonCourage]

And if you want to talk about why I think that, and why others might think that, and come to an actual understanding of some of the perceived flaws of 4e (and maybe even why I play two campaigns of it weekly despite its noncombat resolution systems!), I'd welcome the conversation.

But step #1 in any constructive conversation is mutual respect.

And assuming that I'm being unreasonable is demonstrating a lack of respect. Assuming that your opinion is the only reasonable one is demonstrating a lack of respect. Dismissively laughing at people is demonstrating a lack of respect.

And you can't force others to show you respect.

You can only hope to earn it by showing that respect, regardless of if you "get anything out of it" or not.

So if your reaction to me calling the 4e noncombat rules shoddy is to laugh and be dismissive and assume a defensive position (rather than, perhaps, understanding why I think that), I'm not sure that mutual respect has much of a chance to blossom.

Just for my two cents, you're on a roll in this thread. Really, spot on over and over. Can't XP again yet, but let's just say I owe it to you.

As always, play what you like

 

[BryonD]

But do we need thread after thread with people banging on about how metagame mechanices are the death of roleplaying?

Well, I'll repeat my standard point.

Nothing in 4E is REMOTELY "the death of roleplaying".

However, "metagame mechanics", "gamist design", or whatever label we want to apply have a very significant impact on the RPG experience. That impact may be awesome, terrible, or somewhere in between. The subjective value of it is not in question. But refusal to accept that there is a "significant" difference, or at least that someone ELSE could very reasonably experience this significant difference, even if you don't, is the boggling thing.

Simple question for you: Are the rules to Descent "the death of roleplaying"?
I know a lot of 4E fans start gnashing their teeth at the first mention of any "board game", but bear with me. I'm not asking "is 4e equivalent to Descent". It is not. I'm asking: "Are the rules of Descent the death of roleplaying".

I can roleplay in Descent just as much as I can roleplay in 4E AND just as much as I can roleplay in 3E. Do you dispute that?

But the simple ability to role play on top of a game does not mean that this game provides a quality "role playing game experience". What constitutes that quality is vastly subjective. But I think we can agree that it is probably pretty hard to find someone who considers Descent to be the greatest RPG ever. But if you did, could you prove him wrong? I doubt it. You would probably just be convinced that his idea of a great RPG was deeply different than yours.

4E is vastly better than Descent, IMO. (as an RPG)
But, this is not a boolean issue.
There are degrees. And not just the measure of those degrees, but even what constitutes the very scales those measures are recorded on are subjective.
My ability to role play is the same in Descent, 4E, and 3E. No death here.
The quality of RPG experience is 3E is awesome, in Descent is crap, and in 4E is good.
Descent is fun. But when I want an RPG it will not be my choice. But it isn't competing to be my RPG of choice.
4E is a good. But I'll stick with awesome.

So, are the rules to Descent "the death of roleplaying"?