Realism! Versamilitude! Other Words!

[Elf Witch]

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?

First off how did I rant at people who like4E? I simply pointed out that there is no right or wrong answer to what people find believable in their fantasy role playing. That it comes down to a personal opinion.

I did not nor have I ever attacked 4E.

I read these threads because I am interested in what WOTC is doing. I may not like a lot of the changes but that does not mean that I hate everything about it nor does it mean that I will never play it.

On the other hand one of the things I am finding distasteful is the pro 4E people coping an attidue that if you don't like the changes just shut and go away or implying that the reason someone may not want to switch is because they are stuck in their ways or to cheap to buy new books. That is as insulting as the anti 4E crowd who are saying that people who are happy about 4E are nothing more than lemmings with incapebale of forming their own opinion.

I think that there are people on both sides behaving like a bunch of little kids on a play ground arguing my dad can beat your dad up.

 

[Lackhand]

Too cheap to buy new books is a pretty piss-poor insult. Seriously, I'm sure everyone could do better if they tried -- please don't! -- so if it helps you any, Elf Witch, I definitely don't think there's any snubbage intended there.

It's a pretty reasonable reason to not want to buy something, after all -- being satisfied with what you currently have, and not needing or wanting anything to replace it!

 

[Mistwell]

Because dissent is good.

Dissent itself is not a value-laden thing. It's not actually a good thing in itself.

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.)

It's an awful example. Nobody will remember, or care, 8 years from now, what you said on a message board about the switch-over before publication. And yet, weigh that against the harm it's doing with all the conflict it's causing right now with your peers. "Persuade people in the far future" is a terrible justification for what's been going on lately. I know you said "for one example" but I hope there are much better ones than that tenuous one.

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.

"They" are not. "They" won't likely even be the same people involved with 4e. "They" will likely never read your critique, and certainly will not remember or care about it 8 years from now, particularly given the game isn't even out right now. It's the second time you repeated this extremely thin justification...do you really claim your entire purpose for the critique now is to influence behavior in the relatively far future? Are you even so certain your future self will agree with your current opinion?

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?

I don't think folks are upset with that level of "dissent".

It's people who seem to have made it their mission to hit almost every 4e thread with the same criticism over and over again. Any rules change is being compared to MMOs, anime, lack of verisimilitude, killing D&D, and killing role playing. It's destructive behavior that hampers actual discussion. It tends to distract from the topic of discussion, and cause the same disputes to happen again and again until people who just don't have the time to wade through it all to find the nuggets of constructive discussion decide to leave. That's the "threat".

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?

Well, I've outlined why I think that is not a good reason for it. It won't work. Heck, the designer you are referring to might not even be a designer at all right now, in any field! It's just not realistic to think that displeasure with a particular rule 8 years+ before it is even addressed in 5e is a communication that will reach the person you would need it to reach when you would need it to reach them.

I think there are legit reasons to raise an issue with 4e rules...but "influencing 5e" isn't one of them.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

I can understand that. There are topics that get brought up over and over again until it becomes so much background noise. I can see who you feel that way about realism. I am that way about hearing how 3.5 makes some characters useless. I tend to tune out and dismiss this now. Not that I don't think it is a topic worth discussing but because I believe that some pople bring in one or two negative experiences they have had with a bad DM and that colors the entire issue it is impossible to have any kind of rational discussion.

I do think it would help the discussion though to accept if someone says no I don't feel this way because I have other issues about 4E.

What is really starting to turn me from feeling neutrul about 4E and hoping it succeds to almost wishing it would fail is some of the rabid 4E people and their aggressiveness with people who don't agree with them.

And the rabid anti 4E people are quickly turning me off as well.

I told me roomate that I was getting to the point that I was just going to stop playing DnD for awhile and go back to shadowrun and spend time on Shadpwrun boards and she pointed out that the reason I left there was because of the infighting between people who like 3E and hated the change to 4E and vice versa.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Dissent itself is not a value-laden thing. It's not actually a good thing in itself.

Sure it is.

It's an awful example. Nobody will remember, or care, 8 years from now, what you said on a message board about the switch-over before publication.

Prove it.

You seem to be claiming that designers of future products -- and tomorrow's designers -- are not influenced by today's discussions of design. Are you really arguing that?

 

[Elf Witch]

Too cheap to buy new books is a pretty piss-poor insult. Seriously, I'm sure everyone could do better if they tried -- please don't! -- so if it helps you any, Elf Witch, I definitely don't think there's any snubbage intended there.

It's a pretty reasonable reason to not want to buy something, after all -- being satisfied with what you currently have, and not needing or wanting anything to replace it!

I agree that it is perfectly reasonable not to want to buy something if you are satisfied with what you have.

But I relally dislike being told that my opinion on why I may not like certain things about 4E is because I don't want to spend money on new books. And not because I simply don't like the design of the new rules.

I am such a book whore I know I will end up picking up some of the books. I prefer 3E Shadpwrun to 4E shadowrun but I am still buying the new books.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Jeff Wilder, that was well put, and highly relevant. Yep, a heartfelt 'QFT' for all of that.

I personally dislike more than a couple of rules, but not (and never) the whole ruleset / fluffset. Regardless, it doesn't leave enough in total to entice me. I won't be buying 4e.

However, I'm not opposed to playing a game of it, if someone I like feels inclined to run it. For that matter, I wanted to like 4e. I had great hopes.

And yet, despite being open to the (subjectively) good elements of 4e, I (along with many other sceptics) have been the intended recipient of some of the same kind of implications and so forth you refer to. It's a shame.

When it comes down to it, yes, 4e would negatively impact my suspension of disbelief, and that of other roleplayers I know. And there are other issues. These are all real concerns. No-one I know, including myself, is opposed to buying RPG books. Hardly! We all have a D&D history, 3e inclusive. We have looked at 4e details with curiosity, then with some doubt, and now with disappointment, or resignation. . . it won't be a new enabler of fun and good times for us. Not one among is a 'grognard', in any kind of real sense, either.

And that's a shame too, in its own way. But hey, maybe 5e will be just right for us.


edit --- I was referring to Post #40. Sorry, lag.

 

[Lackhand]

I agree that it is perfectly reasonable not to want to buy something if you are satisfied with what you have.

But I relally dislike being told that my opinion on why I may not like certain things about 4E is because I don't want to spend money on new books. And not because I simply don't like the design of the new rules.

I am such a book whore I know I will end up picking up some of the books. I prefer 3E Shadpwrun to 4E shadowrun but I am still buying the new books.

Truth will out!

... me too.

 

[Mistwell]

Sure it is.

Show me the value of dissent in a vacuum.

Prove it.

Show me one critique of 3e made by pro-2e people 8.5 years ago that so influenced a current designer that they made a change in that rule in 4e specifically because of that complaint 8.5 years ago. Mind you, almost none of this current batch of designers were involved with the 2e to 3e switch, and some of them were not even playing D&D at the time.

You seem to be claiming that designers of future products -- and tomorrow's designers -- are not influenced by today's discussions of design. Are you really arguing that?

Yes. Design discussions 8.5 years ago are not directly influential on today's design decisions, and I think the collective memory will get short rather than longer, as the number of details increase over time. And if they are indirectly influential, any value in that would have been realized if the issue had been discussed for the first time 6 years into the game instead. There is literally no point to discussing it now, if the purpose is to influence 5e. Anything to be gained would be better gained by doing that in 5 or 6 years. Right now, the cost of dissenting for that purpose is far higher than any realistic potential benefit.

Again, there are good reasons to dissent. But influencing 5e simply isn't one of them. There is no evidence that your voice will tend to carry so far into the future as to make a difference. Heck, the odds of your voice influencing something even as the decision is being made is pretty low (though still much higher than doing it now, where your odds are zero).

 

[maggot]

Wow! How has this thread avoided the lock hammer?

BTW, 1e shadpwrun was so much more realistic.