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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4506278" data-attributes="member: 63272">The statement he is maknig, as I see it, is different from the one you are defending."This system fails to meet my needs" is markedly different from "This system is a failure because it doesn't meet my needs" "I need a bicycle to have refridgeration for my beverage" is different from "this bicycle fails because it doesn't have refridgeration, despite still being a bicycle."  From what I am reading, KM is saying the latter, rather than the former, and that is what I am arguing against.  I could certainly be wrong, but that's how I'm reading his comments in this thread (and if I am wrong, Midget, feel free to tell me off for it).My problem with that is in the unrealistic bar that sets.  If the judgment of the success of a system, or a design, is the necessity of meeting every conceivable need/desire, then there will never be a successful system.  One mans crafting is another mans assassins table.  Saying that 4e is not the system for you because it doesn't have crafting, or you don't like the powers structure, is perfectly valid.  There are many RPGs, one can search for and find the ruleset that comes closest to presenting a fantasy game in the manner that the person identifies with.  But labeling something a 'failure' for not meeting your specific needs/wants, when the design met its own goals, is a bit warped, imo.  "Its not the system for me" is a far cry from "4e is a failure because I have to implement my own crafting/profession/assassination/gestalt/spaceship rules."  No system can account for everything.  Every group I have ever gamed with has houseruled at least something in the system they were using.  A game system specifically designing elements to make house rules easy to implement, easy to ensure their balance, is successful design, not a failure to include -whatevertheheck-. I think including in the design, the ability to modify the design to suit the needs/desires of the end user and allows the individual gamer to play the game that suits their group without accidentally killing the game, is quite progressive in RPG game design, and certainly not a key feature of most systems.  This is why I guess it jerks my chain when someone is complaining that 4e doesn't include -whatevertheheck- and then they include this statement at the end - "and don't give me that 'just add it into the game yourself' garbage, I shouldn't HAVE TO!"  It's a very egocentric position to expect or demand a game must somehow be designed around your specific playstyle/needs.  And on top of it, its a bit out there to argue "I shouldn't have to" when the design specifically relegates subsystems to the realm of houserule and allows for their inclusion.  D&D has an objective, identifiable, core of gameplay.  And it is not crafting, it is not manipulation of economic markets for profit, it is not ruling kingdoms or building castles.  All those things can be a part of any individual game, and are often great elements, but the core gameplay is encounter resolution.  Focusing the rules on that and relegating everything else to houserule, future supplements, third party and community sources, is a fairly bold design, and, I think, much more logical a solution than picking and choosing what of any hundreds of subsystems should be included.  These have always changed from edition to edition anyway, based on the egocentrics of the designers own playstyles - "well of course we need a table of clothing and descriptions and price lists for a hundred mundane items that no one ever really needs and rarely directly impacts gameplay".  And edition to edition, there are always players crying out "what about -whatevertheheck-, how come it was removed or not included?"  To me, 4e is much closer to a complete system than the D&D brand had previously accomplished.  Its more modular design makes it easy to modify, easy to fix (a broken power requires a minor tweak, rather than a complete overhaul; such as with melee-magic disparity in previous editions), and easy to expand, both on a per group basis, and through supplmental material, whether from Wizards or the 3PPs.  A "complete system" can't include everything in the rules, thats impossible (or highly improbable).  Instead, the approach would be a modular design in which many elements could easily be incorporated (which, I realize, is what you are saying and where we agree, I'm just elaborating on my own thoughts here).  I think 4e is, if not all the way there itself, a huge step in that direction.</blockquote>

Verification