Rebutting a fallacy: why I await 5e (without holding my breath)

[Greg K]

Oh, so you were intentionally being rude, then. That's not any better.

EN World does not operate on the basis of "Well, he did it to me, so I can do it to him." In the future, if you are tempted to be snarky to prove a point, please resist that temptation.

Umbran, not so much he did it to me. I had just woken up so, maybe, it was not a good choice of words.

I kept hitting the point so, maybe, he would realize he was just stating opinion and not fact. In my opinion, 4e has its good points and bad points. as does 3e. Many people that dislike 4e on these boards have stated similar opinion.

Catastrophic ranting and outright dismissing the preferences of others and their experience, because he holds the objective "Truth", was just not rude to everyone that disagrees it it left no room for discussion. I can't be anything, but dismissive of his post, because his position comes off as myopic. However, trying to point out that he is only stating his opinion based on his experience and preference and that does not make it an objective truth was not being dismissive. It was pointing out that all he was stating was opinion and that he does not hold some universal Truth with a capital "T" as to the basis of other's opinions.

People have stated what they dislike about 4e. He may disagree and that is fine. If they misrepresent something as written in one of the books, he is fine to correct them by quoting a passage. Maybe, he will convince someone to see an aspect of the game in a new light. However, to rant and make the "extraordinary" claims that he did and deny the validity of fellow posters, he better come with proof, because, as you stated, he is the one making those claims.

 

[billd91]

Sure, the concept was there. Anybody who knew something about math could figure it out from the Combat Matrix.

But, the term "THACO" started, full-force, with 2E (although I believe that "THACO" made it into some Dragon articles before 2E was published).

Not just Dragon Magazine articles. THAC0 also made it into RPGA tournament modules and the AD&D Open, if I recall correctly, before 2e.

That said, while THAC0 debuted in the 1e DMG appendices, it was clearly an afterthought that wasn't a perfect fit with 1e. It fails to account for the repetition of the 20 entry on the combat matrices. So I'd agree that THAC0 became the official method in 2e for the first time, though I wouldn't state that it "started, full-force" with 2e.

 

[diaglo]

That's right. I get fuzzy about those and the Basic D&D release (that ended up being concurrent with AD&D).

Holmes 2edD&D and Holmes 3edD&D.

Sure, the concept was there. Anybody who knew something about math could figure it out from the Combat Matrix.

But, the term "THACO" started, full-force, with 2E (although I believe that "THACO" made it into some Dragon articles before 2E was published).

THAC0 was in a few published late 1edADnD modules too. if you open to Appendix E starting on page 196 you will see it in print as To Hit AC 0 as a header right after Monster and Size

i don't play 1edADnD i referee OD&D(1974) and even i have that memorized.

Then, you don't know your 1E combat very well (as complicated as it is). Most people House Ruled it, and I am fuzzy on it as I haven't seen it in years. But what I wrote was close to how it went.

Initiative was only rolled for melee and bows, on a straight D6 without modifiers except for the DEX based reaction modifier (for bows).

In fact, on the first round, the longer weapon attacked first. On the 2nd and following rounds, initiative was thrown.

On an initiative tie, weapon speed factors were compared, possibly allowing the weapon with the smaller speed factor to attack an extra time during the round (or maybe even have three attacks).

Spells were counted in the combat order according to their casting time--no die roll there.

you are getting better.

when you want to play OD&D (1974) using Chainmail (1971) some time come find me at Gen Con or Gary Con.

 

[catastrophic]

It is very simple - you make a claim to an objective truth. The burden is upon you to support that it is, in fact, objective. Until you do that, your position really is just an unsupported assertion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and all that.

And if I offered proof and arguments in detail, the 4e haters would keep arguing regardless, and I would be the one you'd end up banning or banishing for edition warring.

I have seen this happen, numerous times, on many forums. There's nothing rational about this debate, and I posted not for those people, but for other people watching, with a more rational view of the issue.

For instance, i've seen 4e bashers insist that fighters in 3e are really great and competitive and fun to play- and after 15 pages of arguing about that, they go the grognard route and decide that fighters sucking is a good and realistic thing.

Or they'd decide that fun has nothing to do with contributing in substantive, system-based manner, and hey, they even have mike mearls backing them up on that.

Or they'd just decide to call 'edition war', and you'd back them on that.

Now, can I sit here and debate the balance of that class relative to other classes? Sure. Can I make a concise and well supported argument? Sure. Can I do this with any number of issues, from spotlight time, to failure rates, to deprotagonisation, to the traditionalism that pases for degisn in previous editions, to the simulation fallacy, and on? Sure.

Are the majority of the people i'd be arguing with the least bit interested in such an idea, or willing to recognise that such a proof of concept is even possible? Of course not, they're just here to bash 4e. And if you argue against them too much, they get angry, and hostile, and take offence no mater what you say.

After all, when wotc made similar, rational, well reasoned arguments prior to the release of 4e, in order to inform people, in order to be clear about their position, people took personal offence at it, and their 'terrible mean treatment' of the 'fans' in that era has become one of the key myths of the edition war.

Was wotc being mean, or arrogant, or cocky, or any of the nonsence terms bandied about when bashing them? Of course not. They were criticising their own design. But the 4e bashers were happy to take offence, happy to paint them as mean devloper jerks who said mean things to the fans.

Literally, wotc made the kind of arguments you demand, and the 4e haters spun their critique of 3e into a personal attack on 3e fandom. WOTC didn't do that, the 4e hate brigade did that- and they do the same to anyone with a viewpoint they don't like.

The final question, about this objective proof you demand, and the debate it would spur. Will you, as the moderator, play a positive, constructive role in that debate? Don't be ridiculous. You know as well as I do that you'll always let the 4e-bashers have their fun, and stop in if, and only if, the other side of the argument puts up too much of a fight.

So, the two of you are butting heads to no good purpose.

Actually, we're both stating our opinions. After all, in a poorly managed debate like this, when arguing too long is a bannable offence? Stating opinions is all anyone can do.

 

[Eric Tolle]

If 3.X is a simulation game, it's simulating a world that quite basically makes no sense at all. It portrays a pseudo-medieval, pseudo-feudal world, where the largest cities have tens of 18+ level spellcasters. That makes no sense at all, either economically or politically. Based on the RAW, 3.5 D&D worlds should be magically transhumanist, with cheap magical healing, food production, resurrection, and the like. The model should be Star Trek, not Conan.

However, the contradictory elements of the worldbuilding are easily ignored, because simulation isn't the goal of 3.X, power gaming is. The world doesn't have to make sense when you have an rpg version of Magic the Gathering. Exactly like MtG, the whole point of 3.X is to gather the right combination of race, template, feat, classes, prestige classes and so on to make a winning killer combo. One just has to take one look at the optimization boards to see that's the case. This is also the real reason that 3.X fans don't care about the weakness of non-casters; they aren't regarded as viable classes in and of themselves, but only as components to dip a few levels into, on the route to an uber combo character.

It's really sad that 3.X is about coming up with the most cautiously game-breaking pile of attributes, because ba ask in my day we had a word for that kind of player: munchkin. And where we considered munchkinism to be a bad thing, and harmful to the game, D&D 3.X has embraced munchkin ism and power gaming. Not surprising, since the people the designers listened to were the gamers who complained that their wizards had too many limitations.

It's also obvious that Third Edition's emphasis on giving the power gamers their design-based munchkin fantasy has massively hurt the gameplay from fighters that are useless, to arch-mages that are completely untouchable. But until Third Edition fans actually admit to the basic systemic flaws in the design of the game, 4E and the various retro editions is really the only hope for the non-munchkin crowd.

 

[billd91]

It's really sad that 3.X is about coming up with the most cautiously game-breaking pile of attributes, because ba ask in my day we had a word for that kind of player: munchkin. And where we considered munchkinism to be a bad thing, and harmful to the game, D&D 3.X has embraced munchkin ism and power gaming. Not surprising, since the people the designers listened to were the gamers who complained that their wizards had too many limitations.

It's also obvious that Third Edition's emphasis on giving the power gamers their design-based munchkin fantasy has massively hurt the gameplay from fighters that are useless, to arch-mages that are completely untouchable. But until Third Edition fans actually admit to the basic systemic flaws in the design of the game, 4E and the various retro editions is really the only hope for the non-munchkin crowd.

You realize, I hope, that not everyone plays this way. Don't conflate a particular style of play with some overall claim about what the game is about.

 

[Water Bob]

It's really sad that 3.X is about coming up with the most cautiously game-breaking pile of attributes, because ba ask in my day we had a word for that kind of player: munchkin.

Two Comments: There is no "bad-fun", and if gamers are enjoying themselves, more power to them, however they play.

I tend to agree with you a bit (that said), and I think this falls into the realm of the DM. He has the power to control the munchkinism in his game.

In my game, I allowed my players to throw stats per RAW (for the Conan RPG), which is 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste. And, that's what I enforced. One player ended up with a character all over the board:

STR 19 (after +2 racial bonus)
DEX 13
CON 10
INT 12 (after -2 racial penalty)
WIS 7
CHA 6

That's what he rolled. That's how he arranged the numbers. That's what he's playing.

My second comment here is that munchkinism can't happen without the GM allowing it to happen.



Except for his STR rating, this character, Caelis Redbirth, may not look to impressive to you. But, in my game, is STR rating is QUITE impressive because I am so hard on stat throws. What you roll is what you get.

My game mirrors the stat arrays shown in the DMG, where most NPCs hover around the normal array and the PCs hover around the Elite array.

I roll NPCs by using 3d6, six times, arrange to taste--so they, typically, are weaker than the PCs, but not by much. And, if I get hot on the dice (which I've done), sometimes I roll a monster using that method.

Which is fun when it happens in the game--because it's rare.





I think most players shun playing a character who has a negative modifier in a stat. In my game, having a negative modifier in a stat is quite common. The range of stats, 3-18+, was not meant to be played only using the numbers 10+.

It should be OK to see a 5-9 fairly often.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Pretty edition wars in here.

 

[LostSoul]

I think the "simulation" in 3E comes from the fact that the game is set up to have the mechanics support fictional causes - that is, the fictional material that the players come up with determines which mechanics are used or not used and how they are used. For the most part.

4E is a little different. The fiction tends to play a lesser role in resolution than in other games. One quick example: The fiction is important when it comes to determining positioning (who's where, are we in a forest or a swamp, how deep is that trench, etc.), but how you manipulate character's positions does not always rely on the fiction. (And sometimes it does.)

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Pretty edition wars in here.

Thank you.

I wasn't sure they'd go with the drapes, and I had to get new lamps.

The Auld Grump