Realism! Versamilitude! Other Words!

[Jeff Wilder]

Show me the value of dissent in a vacuum.

There is no dissent in a vacuum. Dissent, by definition, involves something else.

Yes. Design discussions 8.5 years ago are not directly influential on today's design decisions

Right-o.

I get that you'd like 4E critics to shut up. I don't really get why, and I'll not state my guesses as to why, but I suppose it's irrelevant, because 4E critics aren't going to shut up. On the other hand, you have the Ultimate Power to not read them. Enjoy it!

 

[Elf Witch]

Wow! How has this thread avoided the lock hammer?

BTW, 1e shadpwrun was so much more realistic.

I never played 1E> I started with 2E and we switched to third what a pain in the arse that was.

The reason I don't like fourth edition Shadowrun is that it does not feel like Shadowrun to me. I am not crazy about some of the rule changes but I could live with that. The new flavor lacks what I want in a Shadowrun game.

That is one of my big issues with 4E what from I have heard it does not have the flavor I want in my fantasy role playing game.

 

[Simon Marks]

Which is what flavour?

 

[roguerouge]

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.

Yes, let's everyone remember that discussion board rants and flame wars are about getting rid of built up negative emotions. When you see something that YOU REGARD as a rant, start asking questions to bring out the implied issue, namely, what is making the ranter feel this way.

It's not about the issue; it's about the feelings around the issue. Blaming and persuading are twin sides of the wrong coin.

My questions would be: What set you off? What made you feel so intensely about this issue? Does this have anything to do with feeling like everything's ending, given the shift in editions, perhaps super-charged by the sadness you may be feeling this week?

And that question goes for everyone on this thread, and not just the OP, just to be clear.

 

[Thaumaturge]

There is no dissent in a vacuum. Dissent, by definition, involves something else.

Ooh! I want to play. If we go down the "complex system" argument (i.e. all actions affect each other, and no action is in a vacuum), then it becomes very difficult to prove the value of any one component of the complex system.

For example: If a group of people dissent against <insert political situation>, is the dissent per se the reason for <change of political situation>? For any theoretical (hi, Eric's Grandma) political situation for which you demonstrate dissent's supposed impact, one could argue dissent had little or no effect on the actual political situation as it unfolded. Other factors, such as zeitgeist, economic influences, different individual policy makers, entropy, etc. all could have had at least as large an impact as the dissent.

So, if we don't observe dissent in a vacuum, because there are other factors, we must consider all other factors and not just the dissent.

It is possible in a few years dissent against 1-2-1, etc. will affect the attitudes of the designers of 5e, but that is unlikely to affect anyone from back here in the past.
Besides, in a capitalist society the most effective form of dissent is a vote with the wallet.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Moochava]

I agree with the OP. Most of the anti-4E ranting seems to stem from a prioritizing of theoretical over actual gaming. The 1-2-1 argument is the most egregious offender here. In my Saturday night game, I counted six examples of incorrect counting when using 1-2-1. Granted, most of my players only have doctorates from state schools, so maybe they're not as smart as people who argue about D&D on the Internet, but the number of little mistakes and slow-downs was impressive enough that I don't care about the ideological purity of my game: I'm going to switch and make play that much tidier.

Likewise, per-encounter powers. They do the same thing as hit points: convert something that should have a low chance of happening (getting hit, performing a tricky maneuver) from a low-probability, unpredictable, and tactically uninteresting element ("Surprise, you're dead!" "Your chance of pulling off the Flying Tackle is 3%") into a resource that players can manipulate. If you can rationalize hit points, you can rationalize per-encounter powers, and if you can't rationalize hit points, GURPS is really an excellent game that starts by trying to build up a coherent environment rather than an entertaining system.

 

[Fifth Element]

I get that you'd like 4E critics to shut up. I don't really get why, and I'll not state my guesses as to why, but I suppose it's irrelevant, because 4E critics aren't going to shut up. On the other hand, you have the Ultimate Power to not read them. Enjoy it!

That's an unfair characterization. I think Mistwell described his position quite clearly, and while I don't entirely agree with it I think your characterization of his argument is misleading. He was very clear about which arguments he finds not helpful, nowhere did he say all 4E criticism is not helpful.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

So it's an "attributing motives" thing?

"Ah! I see you have a problem with the new edition! You say it is because of X, but I know why you're REALLY angry! You're REALLY angry because you're a reactionary emotional goofball and I am not! If you would not be a reactionary emotional goofball, you would see that everything about 4e is so absolutely magnificent that you will have to change pants after you experience it! To think otherwise is just being annoying and arguing for the sake of arguing! Don't argue! You're not really having the problems you say you're having! You're just a scared little nerd affraid of change!"

That's overblown, and I know this is the 4e forum and all, but do you think it would be too much to ask that we don't try to psychoanalyze people on a message board, and instead take their statements at face value unless they deliberately ask otherwise?

I get that it's annoying to have to hear unfounded criticisms over and over again, but really that's all the OP is: an unfounded criticism we've heard over and over again. I'm discussing it in the hopes that some posters will actually start bringing attention to where the interesting conversation is instead of trotting out the same tired shallow criticisms, not of the poster's position or their facts, but of the posters themselves. There's been plenty of threads delving into the anime argument, the videogame argument, and we hear those criticisms a lot less around these parts after those massive threads beat the dead horse to a pulp. (I can't remember the last time I seriously saw a poster arguing that anything was "too anime." And I don't have an ignore list.)

The OP has virtually nothing to do with the actual criticisms levied against 4e. I'm calling that out in the hopes that more people who engage in the 4e debate will avoid a pat defense that doesn't actually defend.

The interesting conversation isn't about whether or not 3e simulated real life. It's about the differences between 3e and 4e with regards to people being able to suspend disbelief. For some people, 3e does enough, and 4e, so far, does not. Talk about the differences. Going off half-cocked about how 3e isn't really realisitic so everyone should just shut up about 4e not being believable is pretty useless. It's just screaming at people that their opinions are invalid, and it's untrue.

Saying that you can divine someone's motives from an aggregate of the posts you've seen from them is internet psychoanalysis, and, worse, assigning them motives, and, at the bottom line, insulting.

So even if you can, the discussion is in addressing the content of their post, not the motivations of the poster.

And if you don't want to do that, don't read it, or slap 'em on Ignore. Your brain may thank you for it.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

[Mistwell] was very clear about which arguments he finds not helpful, nowhere did he say all 4E criticism is not helpful.

Is this where he was very clear about it?

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.

Looks a lot to me like he's saying "an argument is a worthwhile argument if the other guy eventually comes to agree with my assessment that he's not being objective." Am I paraphrasing the above unfairly?

He's basically telling people to keep quiet about their problems with 4E unless talking about their problems with 4E helps those people realize how wrong they are.

 

[Fifth Element]

Is this where he was very clear about it?

No, it's more like here:

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".

Looks a lot to me like he's saying "an argument is a worthwhile argument if the other guy eventually comes to agree with my assessment that he's not being objective." Am I paraphrasing the above unfairly?

He's basically telling people to keep quiet about their problems with 4E unless talking about their problems with 4E helps those people realize how wrong they are.

No, he's not. He's referring to "some" people. Specifically, those who cause the problems described in the post I quoted above. Now, his purpose might be better served by reporting bad posts to the mods rather than discussing it on the boards, but that doesn't allow you to interpret his posts however you please.

Can you point me to where he said "No one should be criticizing 4E", as you claim?