Opinion: But It's So Gamist!!

[BryonD]

As far as contradicting the "man on the street", well, honestly, who cares? The Man on the Street coming in to D&D is going to be smacked in the face with so many things that contradict common stories that "You can only ever wear two rings" is going to be VERY low on the radar.

I agree with that.

I think the rings thing is a bad idea, but it has nothing to do with preconceptions.

 

[Hussar]

See, now, for me, the only judgement I'm going to level at the whole ring thing (or anything else for that matter) is going to be - Does this work? Is the reason for this tied to making solid mechanics? Yes? Good enough for me.

I'll handle everything else at the table. So, names don't faze me, classes? Couldn't be bothered. So long as it runs smooth, I'll make up whatever flavour pleases me best. Same as I've always done.

 

[Talislan]

I'm looking forward to a NEW game. Its a NEW version of D&D called D&D 4e. It's a NEW way of playing D&D with NEW rules.

This is my view. You might call it gamist.

I could tell you I'm looking forward to seeing how they make combat between characters more(or less) realistic and more interesting to play out. Then you might call my view simulationist.

If I then say that in this NEW game they have left the world open for me to put my own slant onto the background with only the bare minimum of fluff dictating how the world works. I am therefore looking forward to the freedom of telling my own story about the events leading up to the battles that take place within it.
Now I look narrativist (or whatever the proper term is).

If I put all three together I can't be pidgeon-holed so what would that make me?
Well I'm for gamist, because without playing the NEW game, the other two can't happen.(IMHO)

T.

P.S. The Bilbo/Frodo one ring that 'anyone' could wear argument. Point of fact: Every character that wore the ring in LotR was corrupted by it. (The big G-man even makes a point of telling Frodo not to tempt him with its power!). As to mastering its power, NO ONE ever masters its true power (one ring to rule them all). They get made invisible by it and in return it sends them mad. (in short).
It is a corrupt influence on the weak 'heroes' of the story. The 'Paragon' of Wizardry is afraid to touch it even as he transcends into his 'Epic' destiny (becoming the White Wizard).

My point: Please find a better argument for this 'sacred cow' being changed in the NEW game to one that uses Tolkien as a reference. Using Tolkien as a reference only confirms what WoTC is doing is following that strand of the fantasy genres norm's and that they are therefore right. It is a rubbish argument.

And the argument that the 'ring rule' is not D&D gaming? Wrong. It's not 1e, 2e or 3e or 3.xe D&D. That much is true. But not D&D? Well unless anything changes I can tell you it most definately IS the new game I am so looking forward too that IS called D&D 4e

 

[ruleslawyer]

I don't think or claim that the man on the street gets hung up on it.
But I think saying that the man on the street assumes anyone can wear a ring is reasonable and saying the man on the street doesn't know what a mind flayer is is an unrelated and different issue.

My point was that in either case, the man on the street would need to rethink any and all so-called "assumptions" regarding fantasy, myth, and folklore when he sat down to play a game of D&D. (Also that the fragile assumption that one can get from watching the LotR films about "anyone" wearing a ring isn't really something that matters at all when presented with the D&D mythology de novo, re: rings or otherwise.) Mayhap I should have used a better example than mind flayers, like the elven height, Greek monster issues, or other things I mentioned. (Add to that trolls being skinny, not living under bridges, and not being allergic to sunlight. You pretty much have to have read Three Hearts and Three Lions to have any "simulationist" context for trolls, paladins, or gnomes in D&D.)

 

[Roman]

I think it's hard to say. What is it about those mechanics that concerns you?

The referencing of durations and frequency of action use to gamist councepts such as 'encounters': It just does not make logical in-game sense to me to have frequencies and durations tied to something so arbitrary and non-existent in the game world. On top of that, I cringe at the thought of players artificially prolonging or cutting short encounters for the sake of their encounter-based powers. Also, I wonder how one should adjudicate the use of such powers outside of encounters.

The removal of non-combat powers from monsters: I want to be able to see what monsters can and cannot do also out of combat and to have it supported mechanically. Furthermore, I don't want my workload as a DM inordinately increased by having to design this myself and it would take a huge amount of work to do so...


The inability to be bad in a skill and the like: I want to be able to create characters, both as a player and as a DM, who follow the rules, yet are not good at certain skills. A couple of examples: A burly fighter from the plains who cannot 'climb', a paladin that is always slow to act, a wizard that commands vast magical might yet cannot walk up the stairs without panting.... the examples abound.

 

[BryonD]

My point was that in either case, the man on the street would need to rethink any and all so-called "assumptions" regarding fantasy, myth, and folklore when he sat down to play a game of D&D.

That is fine and correct. But it doesn't accurately reflect what he was saying.

 

[rounser]

My point: Please find a better argument for this 'sacred cow' being changed in the NEW game to one that uses Tolkien as a reference. Using Tolkien as a reference only confirms what WoTC is doing is following that strand of the fantasy genres norm's and that they are therefore right. It is a rubbish argument.

Go back a page or two, and read the thread. It was your side of the argument who raised Tolkien as proof for it being the norm in the fantasy genre to have level limited rings.

Now it's backfired on you, you're pretending it's my idea to raise Tolkien as a defense. Pull the other one, for it has bells upon it. Anyone knows there's no level limits on rings in fantasy by default; I'm just proving you guys wrong with your own pet example.

I don't even care about the ring thing, it's just that it's an example of a clear, arguably unwelcome D&Dism that 4E is introducing. I don't care about that one, but some others, sure.

 

[Talislan]

Go back a page or two, and read the thread. It was your side of the argument who raised Tolkien as proof for it being the norm in the fantasy genre to have level limited rings.

Now it's backfired on you, you're pretending it's my idea to raise Tolkien as a defense. Pull the other one, for it has bells upon it. Anyone knows there's no level limits on rings in fantasy by default; I'm just proving you guys wrong with your own pet example.

I don't even care about the ring thing, it's just that it's an example of a clear, arguably unwelcome D&Dism that 4E is introducing. I don't care about that one, but some others, sure.

Mr rounser,
My comment wasn't aimed at a 'side', just the argument. Whatever 'side' you are on my point stands.
I never insinuated it was 'your' idea so I have no idea why you have taken this personally. My apologies if undue offence was taken.
The comment "Anyone knows there's no level limits on rings in fantasy by default" is unfortunately a generalist statement with no substantiating proof apart from personal opinion. However, despite this I think you missed my overall point:
It doesn't matter if or what the genre default is was or will be. This is a NEW game with NEW rules.
Hence the reason I am for 'gamist' because until I play the NEW game with NEW default rules I cannot bring in simmulation or narration as ways of playing.(IMO)

T.

On a side note rounser, I don't know whether you realise it but your posts come across as quite aggressive bordering on insulting. I'm pretty sure this is not your intention and I only want to bring this to your attention so that you don't find people reacting the wrong way to you. After all its always good to see passion in an argument. Cheers.

 

[rounser]

On a side note rounser, I don't know whether you realise it but your posts come across as quite aggressive bordering on insulting. I'm pretty sure this is not your intention and I only want to bring this to your attention so that you don't find people reacting the wrong way to you. After all its always good to see passion in an argument. Cheers.

"It is a rubbish argument" is insulting when you've not even read why I've made it.

I accuse you of hypocrisy and suggest that I give just as good as I get. "Pull the other one, it has bells on it" is no less rude than you were, so please drop the condescension.

Be polite if you want politeness in return...and I'm only doling out unsolicited advice to you because you did so to me. Note the pattern?

 

[Roman]

"It is a rubbish argument" is insulting when you've not even read why I've made it.

I accuse you of hypocrisy and suggest that I give just as good as I get. "Pull the other one, it has bells on it" is no less rude than you were, so please drop the condescension.

Be polite if you want politeness in return...and I'm only doling out unsolicited advice to you because you did so to me. Note the pattern?

Although I agree that dismissive words like 'rubbish argument' and so on were first used in this thread by some folks seeking to eliminate all traces of simulationism from 4E (or at least justify why this was done), responding in kind does not help. You have argued the case for more simulationism in 4E effectively, concisely and clearly. Would you really want to lose that by being 'suspended' from the boards? Bear in mind, that this is a 4E forum, so gushing enthusiasm for everything 4E is to be expected and that in this case means gamism. After all, most people who visit the board are those who are either enthusiastic about 4E or at least somewhat considering whether to switch over to 4E or somewhere in between, so the tolerance level among the moderators for abrasive responsive in favor of 4E paradigms and those against 4E paradigms probably differs...