Realism! Versamilitude! Other Words!

[Imp]

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.

It started with the original post, frankly. It is quite literally railing at people. Why you're taking action against the commenters but not the inciting comment, I can't tell.

 

[Henry]

It started with the original post, frankly. It is quite literally railing at people. Why you're taking action against the commenters but not the inciting comment, I can't tell.

Let me be clearer:

Second, everyone let's please tone down the confrontational stuff

How that doesn't apply to the original poster, I don't understand.

I didn't want to close down the thread because others have replied with some good discussion and points, not just bickering, and the O.P. did have some points to make mixed in with the confrontational stuff.

If you have any other questions, my email's in the Meta forum.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think the key to fairly evaluating 4e is to take the developers' word on what they were trying to do. Look at each new rule/power/system/etc., and ask, "Is this fun/cool enough to merit the added complexity?"

The trick is, convoluted rules aren't the only kind of "complexity." Every departure from realism (or at least cinematic verisimilitude) also increases the complexity of the game by adding one more little thing DMs and players have to keep in mind as they play.

For example, love them or hate them, daily and encounter powers DO invite the question, "Why can't you just use that badass move again and kill the REST of the bad guys?" This is a tradeoff. You gain more varied and cinematic gameplay, and you eliminate much of the complex weirdness of Vancian spellcasting, but you also add one more complex bit of unreality to justify. The question is: is it worth it? (I'm betting yes.)

The WotC guys aren't dumb. I'm thinking they did this calculus on all their big rule changes. Healing surges, full HP when you camp, "marking" enemies, etc. But that doesn't mean individual players can't disagree with their decisions.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Did I bring up the recharge mechanic? Hmm? Wait a second, I didn't! You must have responded to my post by mistake. Whoops!

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Sure.

If someone says 3e healing was BETTER than 4e healing because it didn't break their believability, saying "But 3e'd healing isn't believable, either!" is useless.

They're okay with 3e's healing. They're not with 4e's. The interesting conversation is in the differences between them and why some people break at healing surges but don't at wands of cure light wounds.

If someone says 3e diagonals were BETTER than 4e diagonals because it didn't break their believability, saying "But 3e diagonals didn't make sense either!" is useless.

They're okay with 3e's diagonals. They're not with 4e's. The interesting conversation is in the differences between them and why some people break at 1-1-1 but don't at 1-2-1.

If someone holds up 3e to be a paragon of realism, then it can be broken down. But saying 3e is more realistic in comparison, which is what most of the critics on this angle are screaming, works.

No one is saying that 3e works like the real world.

A lot of people are saying that 4e doesn't work as much like any believable world as 3e does.

As such, the OP's rant against "realism" is missing the mark.

 

[Mistwell]

Sure.

If someone says 3e healing was BETTER than 4e healing because it didn't break their believability, saying "But 3e'd healing isn't believable, either!" is useless.

They're okay with 3e's healing. They're not with 4e's. The interesting conversation is in the differences between them and why some people break at healing surges but don't at wands of cure light wounds.

If someone says 3e diagonals were BETTER than 4e diagonals because it didn't break their believability, saying "But 3e diagonals didn't make sense either!" is useless.

They're okay with 3e's diagonals. They're not with 4e's. The interesting conversation is in the differences between them and why some people break at 1-1-1 but don't at 1-2-1.

If someone holds up 3e to be a paragon of realism, then it can be broken down. But saying 3e is more realistic in comparison, which is what most of the critics on this angle are screaming, works.

No one is saying that 3e works like the real world.

A lot of people are saying that 4e doesn't work as much like any believable world as 3e does.

As such, the OP's rant against "realism" is missing the mark.

I disagree. I think a lot of the time when people think 3e "did it better", its out of habit, or nostalgia, or emotions about spending money, or emotion about unwelcome change, and not about any actual rules-based basis for thinking 3e "did it better".

Often the people who make the claim that 3e was "more believable" make other claims, and talk about other issues frequently, that leave an impression that the things motivating them to say that do not jive with the claim that they really thought 3e was more believable on a rules basis.

And as such, it's perfectly "useful" to call into question the claim they are making that "3e was more believable" for them.

 

[Elf Witch]

I disagree. I think a lot of the time when people think 3e "did it better", its out of habit, or nostalgia, or emotions about spending money, or emotion about unwelcome change, and not about any actual rules-based basis for thinking 3e "did it better".

Often the people who make the claim that 3e was "more believable" make other claims, and talk about other issues frequently, that leave an impression that the things motivating them to say that do not jive with the claim that they really thought 3e was more believable on a rules basis.

And as such, it's perfectly "useful" to call into question the claim they are making that "3e was more believable" for them.

Or it can simply be they think 3E does do it better. I am for one am a little tired of having my opinion dismissed and told the reason I am not liking what I am hearing is because I am stuck in my ways, hate change and I am cheap.

I find some of the things I have heard about 4e to strain my ability to susepnd my disbelief. And you know what that is okay because that is my opinion and it is not wrong to me.

Now for people who like what they are hearing about 4E and say that they have no issue with it being belivable then they are right too because it is their opinion.

I just don't get that this has to be an issue of who is right and who is wrong.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Or it can simply be they think 3E does do it better. I am for one am a little tired of having my opinion dismissed and told the reason I am not liking what I am hearing is because I am stuck in my ways, hate change and I am cheap.

I find some of the things I have heard about 4e to strain my ability to susepnd my disbelief. And you know what that is okay because that is my opinion and it is not wrong to me.

Now for people who like what they are hearing about 4E and say that they have no issue with it being belivable then they are right too because it is their opinion.

I just don't get that this has to be an issue of who is right and who is wrong.

I've said it before and I'm going to say it again. If you think that another edition is superior to 4th edition, why don't you just go play it? Why worry about 4th edition? If you've already got perfection, why are you attacking 4th edition when its publication cannot alter in any way, shape, or form the existence of the edition you prefer?

I'm honestly baffled by this. If you think 3rd edition is perfect, why are you here complaining at people because of things you don't like in 4th edition?

If you don't like any of it, don't buy it. Keep on playing as you want to. More power to you!!!!!

I think that a lot of the reason people react strongly to the critics of 4th edition who already think that another edition already "got it right" is that there appears to be no logical basis for complaining. If you're already completely satisfied with your Ford mid-sized car, why go rant at people who are talking about a Mitsubishi SUV?

 

[Mistwell]

Or it can simply be they think 3E does do it better. I am for one am a little tired of having my opinion dismissed and told the reason I am not liking what I am hearing is because I am stuck in my ways, hate change and I am cheap.

I find some of the things I have heard about 4e to strain my ability to susepnd my disbelief. And you know what that is okay because that is my opinion and it is not wrong to me.

Now for people who like what they are hearing about 4E and say that they have no issue with it being belivable then they are right too because it is their opinion.

I just don't get that this has to be an issue of who is right and who is wrong.

It isn't an issue of right and wrong. However, it is and issue of hearing it one too many times, in too many threads.

For example, I for one think the word verisimilitude is being abused lately on this board. It's being repeated as a mantra, often in an erroneous manner, to describe virtually anything that is new and different.

I have no problem if you like 3e more than 4e.

I do have a problem if people constantly claim something that was hideously not believable in 3e is somehow more believable than 4e in a material way (in a way that actually has real meaning). It's like saying "in 3e, cats teleport, and in 4e they can not only teleport but they leave a purple haze in the air when they do, and that purple haze just destroys verisimilitude for me". The additional non-believable element is so minor compared to the extreme non-believability of the whole thing that I think it is fair to look to see if there is something motivating that person to make such a minor thing into a major issue.

And if that person is also often posting about highly emotional issues about 4e that have nothing at all to do with the rules (like price, or change, or corporate greed, or hate of MMOs or anime, etc..) then I think it is fair to consider the possibility that those other issues offer a more logical explanation for their tendency to make a big issue out of the relative believability of things which have no basic believability to begin with.

In essence, I think the psychology behind this constant "realism" and "verisimilitude" argument is a valid topic for discussion. For a lot of people (but not all), I think it is a fair criticism, and one they may not have considered. If examining this issue helps some folks come to realize that 4e is so tainted by "other" issues in their mind that they are no longer being objective concerning the issue of "realism" and the rules, then the level of discussion might improve.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I've said it before and I'm going to say it again. If you think that another edition is superior to 4th edition, why don't you just go play it? Why worry about 4th edition?

Because dissent is good. Because although it's too late for 4E, maybe in 5E they'll take note of the fact that people prefer 1-2-1-2 over 1-1-1-1 by over 2-to-1, and that more people would even have rather had hexes than 1-1-1-1. (For one example.)

3E brought me back to the D&D. Maybe 5E will bring me back to the current edition of D&D. But they are less likely to fix what I think is wrong if I don't say what I think is wrong.

So I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again: Why are some people so adamant against 4E critics? What's the threat? There are only two rules that I've seen in 4E that I dislike. Why is it that when I say so, and explain why, instead of accepting that explanation at face value some people imply I'm too cheap to buy 4E, or a I'm 4E hater, or I'm hide bound, or I'm looking at 3E through rose-colored glasses?

Why can't I simply be expressing concern over a brand that I've loved since I was 12 -- 28 years! -- in the hopes that some WotC designer, somewhere, will notice and keep it in mind?