Realism! Versamilitude! Other Words!

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

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.

There's also:
4) "4e system X is broken/unrealistic/videogamey/not kosher/etc." On reflection, it is determined that the system is more or less the same in 3e. The "flaw wasn't fixed" argument you mention above doesn't stand, because the issue was not perceived as a problem in 3e, but it is now a problem for no reason other than being present in the new edition. If the presence of this system in 4e is such a deal-breaker, why wasn't it a point of contention in 3e. A recent example of this is Split the Tree, which was known as Greater Manyshot in 3e. Greater Manyshot was not perceived as a problem, nor as a "latent psychic ability,*" as the complainant in the Split the Tree thread characterized it. But port it over to 4e? Now it's totally unbelievable.

*Being a [general] feat from the Expanded Psionics Handbook, you'd think that if it were an issue, someone would have brought it up at the time.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Or, to carry the analogy to my complaint, above: The first kid says "darn." The second kid says "darn." The authority figure punishes the second kid for swearing.

 

[roguerouge]

I hope you feel better soon.

 

[HeinorNY]

3e has non-Euclidean diagonals.

Yes, but 4E diagonals are much more non-Eucidlian than 3E's.
There is an amount of non-Eculiniasm that each player can take.
3E had a nice and satisfactory amount of non-Eucladinism, IMHO.
4E has too much non-Eudlicinism for my taste, it could be a little more Eclideam.

 

[robertliguori]

There's also:
4) "4e system X is broken/unrealistic/videogamey/not kosher/etc." On reflection, it is determined that the system is more or less the same in 3e. The "flaw wasn't fixed" argument you mention above doesn't stand, because the issue was not perceived as a problem in 3e, but it is now a problem for no reason other than being present in the new edition. If the presence of this system in 4e is such a deal-breaker, why wasn't it a point of contention in 3e. A recent example of this is Split the Tree, which was known as Greater Manyshot in 3e. Greater Manyshot was not perceived as a problem, nor as a "latent psychic ability,*" as the complainant in the Split the Tree thread characterized it. But port it over to 4e? Now it's totally unbelievable.

*Being a [general] feat from the Expanded Psionics Handbook, you'd think that if it were an issue, someone would have brought it up at the time.

Well, no. Greater Manyshot was "You are so badass at archery, you can do this."

Split the Tree is "You can do this poorly-fluffed ability once, then you need to recharge. Recharge what or how, nobody knows." Stat Power Attack as a once-per-encounter ability and you'd get the same reaction.

Plus, although I must commend you for your massive D&D comment grep file that enables you to adequately judge the amount of curiosity directed at things like Rage and Stunning Fist in 3.XE, it has some weak points; namely, there were a lot of people who did wonder how you justify completely mundane rechargable abilities.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I swear to crap, the next person who tries to claim 3e was remotely realistic in any way, shape, or form is getting a boot to the head.

Do you know what happens when you stab a soldier of twenty years in the chest with a sword? They die. Period. Do you know what happens when you fall 50 ft onto stone? You die. Goodnight, Gracie.

Bull . My cousin dove off a 60 foot bluff and rammed a 5 inch in diameter tree limb all the way through his chest. It stopped at his backbone. He lived. He's in great condition to this day, other than having to go to the hospital 3 or 4 times a year to have inch long splinters removed from his body. A friend of my father's parachute failed to ope in WW2. He plummeted THOUSANDS of feet. He also lived. It broke his back in 3 places and he spent 6 months in the hospital, but he also is fine to this day. And he's in his 80s. I could give you other examples, as well.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Well, no. Greater Manyshot was "You are so badass at archery, you can do this."

Split the Tree is "You can do this poorly-fluffed ability once, then you need to recharge. Recharge what or how, nobody knows." Stat Power Attack as a once-per-encounter ability and you'd get the same reaction.

Also, you don't get GMS at FIRST fricking level.

 

[Henry]

First of all, deep breaths ARE a good idea. Second, everyone let's please tone down the confrontational stuff; railing at people only gets their defenses up, and pretty much makes no point that anyone will listen to in the end, other than the choir.

That said: I think some of the arguments are not that 3e, 2e or even 1e was some great bastion of simulation, realism, or plausibility. However, an argument can be made that it's easier to come up with plausible explanations for the "physics" in 3e versus the physics in 4e that we've seen. In the quest to make a smoother game to play, more and more concessions have been made in the name of fairness, speed of play, and inclusiveness, and as a result, some people feel like some of what made the game unique and endearing has been lost. If any one of them is more "realistic", it's the original Chainmail, where "hit dice" originated from "hits to kill" - you hit that hero four times, he's dead, because he's "tougher."

Originally, there were rules for how much to pay the help, how much each little section of castle cost, how aggravating it was to collect parts for magic items, and other little representations of how difficult it would be to "really do" certain things.

I don't mind if the edges are smoothed off, if it makes a better game for the populace to play; however, it doesn't mean that I don't hold a place in my heart for that difficult, nitpicky, more "realistic" version that took determination to follow its rules.

 

[Cadfan]

You get rapid shot at second level. It does the same thing, except you can't walk. Is that the problem? Would people think that Split the Tree was fine if you couldn't do it and walk in the same round?

 

[Henry]

You get rapid shot at second level. It does the same thing, except you can't walk. Is that the problem? Would people think that Split the Tree was fine if you couldn't do it and walk in the same round?

Actually, Sean Reynolds had concerns even back to 2002 that Rapid Shot was "too good" for its positioning in the feat chain, because the number of times an archer had to give up multiple attacks was far fewer than when a melee fighter had to. Just because it's in 3e doesn't mean everyone thinks it's some paragon of balance, either.