I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
A rant is usually better if you know what you're actually ranting against.
Next?
Realism! Versamilitude! Other Words!
- Thread starter Jon Wake
- Start date
A rant is usually better if you know what you're actually ranting against.
Next?
Darrin Drader
Explorer
Kamikaze Midget said:
Doesn't this have something to do with the hat of d02?
Vradna
First Post
Where I find the humour is regardless how long I can spend away from ENWorld, I can always come back and immediately find:
1. Someone is getting bent outta shape over something.
2. Someone getting bent outta shape over someone else getting bent outta shape over something.
Pike it, Berks.
1. Someone is getting bent outta shape over something.
2. Someone getting bent outta shape over someone else getting bent outta shape over something.
Pike it, Berks.
Masquerade
First Post
Insert the "HP is an abstraction" argument of your choosing here.Jon Wake said:
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Whisperfoot said:
It's really the same "Don't knock 4e because 3e wasn't all that good either!" canard that we've seen in a thousand other threads, but it's weirdly conjoined with a "Realism means you die in one hit!" kind of strawman.
To start with, the sins of one edition aren't an excuse for the sins of the next. That's ESPECIALLY true in 4e when cutting ties with the old is something they deliberately embraced. 4e wanted to fix problems with 3e, and if it failed to do that, it can be taken to task for that. Not that the criticism will always carry much weight, but it's still entirely a valid criticism. The criticsm that 4e won't have core rules for vampire tarot-reader PC's is a valid criticism, despite the fact that no edition has that, and that no edition has really ever TRIED to have that. It's not a very deep or wounding criticism, but it's there.
Lacking "Realism" in the sense of "exactly like the real world" is a valid criticism for 4e. There's a thousand good reasons why 4e lacks that, but it does, and the fact that no edition has that is not a good reason in and of itself.
It's like a two-year-old getting in trouble for swearing and having that two year old point at another kid and say "She said it, too!"
It doesn't matter. Each edition is responsible for it's own successes and failures as a game. 4e won't be very much like the real world. Some interesting conversation might be achieved as to WHY that is, but "Shut up, 3e wasn't like the real world, either!" doesn't really add to the discussion much.
Next, we have a mixup of realism/believability. From what I've seen, most people aren't really griping that 4e isn't like the real world. Instead, they're griping that it's not "realistic," or "believable." They say that certain demonstrated aspects of 4e (like strict silos or non-euclidian diagonals, or whatever) shaft that for them, whereas, since these elements weren't in 3e, the older edition does better. They're not saying it's perfectly realistic or even necessarily perfectly believable, but the internal consistency is enough for them, while 4e's is not.
Since we all play a game about prancing elves in the lollipop kingdom, it's pretty safe to assume that no one wants a game strictly like the real world. Where the actual discussion lies is in how 4e makes abstractions and simplifications that aren't believable, and how 3e does at least nod at believability, and why people break at these various points (and perhaps how to reconcile it). Those differences are sometimes pretty subtle and minor, but they're obviously important to some people (and obviously not important to others).
The OP doesn't really seem to understand the distinction, and then offers up an argument that doesn't really hold up, even if he did.
So I don't really think the OP knows what he's ranting against.
I mean, I guess that could be intentional? This is a humor thread, but I don't really see teh funney at all. Perhaps it went over my head?
Doug McCrae
Legend
3e has non-Euclidean diagonals.Kamikaze Midget said:
EDIT: You're doing precisely what Jon Wake is railing against - over-stating the case for the realism of 3e.
Last edited:
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
YKWIM.
Also: Hooray, you're doing that disengenuous "3e had it, so 4e can have it too!" thing! Let's have a bake sale!
You keep saying this, but you're missing the point by a wide, wide degree. Edition comparisons are entirely relevant if the person you're speaking to is making a larger argument about the superiority of 3rd edition over 4th.Kamikaze Midget said:
I know that many criticisms of 4e can be divorced from the actual arguments actually made on this forum, and rendered... less clueless. But that does not make it a straw man argument to address the actual positions of actual people. There is no obligation to translate someone else's argument into something smarter before responding to it.
Key:
1) "4e healing is unrealistic." Legitimate argument, comparison to 3e is only appropriate if the rest of the text demonstrates an intention to bring 3e into the fight.
2) "4e killed realistic healing!" 3e comparison is relevant immediately. Presumably 3e healing was realistic, if 4e killed realistic healing. If 3e healing is not in fact realistic, one of the argument's premises is flawed.
3) "I'm not going to 4e because the healing is unrealistic. I'll stick with 3e." 3e comparisons might be relevant. On one hand, the person could be arguing that because 4e does not fix a flaw in 3e, he doesn't feel the need to switch. On the other, he could be arguing that he prefers to stick with realistic 3e healing. It is legitimate to bring the issue up.
Doug McCrae
Legend
What if the authority figure heard the first kid swear and did nothing but punished the second kid for the same offence? Then she would have a legitimate complaint.Kamikaze Midget said:
