So it's the old "Edition War" excuse to dismiss people?

[DEFCON 1]

But, I cannot tell you which is technically a "better" string, because that depends upon what you're going to use the string for. You and your neighbor may have different string-needs, and thus require different qualities in your string. Your need for a string to use as a laundry line calls for a string with different attributes than your neighbor who wants to tie up a roast he's cooking for dinner.

Wapcaplet: ONLY STRING?! It's everything! It's...it's waterproof!

Simpson: No it isn't!

Wapcaplet: All right, it's water resistant then!

Simpson: It isn't!

Wapcaplet: All right, it's water absorbent! It's...Super Absorbent String! "ABSORB WATER TODAY WITH SIMPSON'S INDIVIDUAL WATER ABSORB-A-TEX STRINGETTES! AWAY WITH FLOODS!"

Simpson: You just said it was waterproof!

Wapcaplet: "AWAY WITH THE DULL DRUDGERY OF WORKADAY TIDAL WAVES! USE SIMPSON'S INDIVIDUAL FLOOD PREVENTERS!"

Simpson: You're mad!

 

[TrippyHippy]

From an outside perspective, 'warring' must be hilarious.

If you take this whole thread as being a response to another thread whose OP was effectively writing a manifesto, I'm not entirely sure where the boundaries are for what is warring and what is not.

Oh, and for the record I think 4e was a poorly designed game, written at a time when the whole 'system matters' mantra was at it's zenith. 4e was the logical conclusion to what people were erroneously claiming were the fundamentals of good design at the time. The result was division and factionalizing.

Am I a warrior!?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm very analytical by nature, but I remain extremely skeptical of a claim that an RPG can be objectively better than another.

F.A.T.A.L., Spawn of Fashan, World of Synnibarr & RaHoWa spring to mind as being conspicuously and legendarily bad, each for a variety of reasons.

RIFTS, while not in the same league as those, is notorious for having wonky mechanics and a lack of play testing, noted not just by haters, but fans and even game designers who contributed to it. Some of those designers have even alleged that its mastermind, K. Siembieda does not playtest new material.

And that's the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Herschel]

I'm very analytical by nature, but I remain extremely skeptical of a claim that an RPG can be objectively better than another.

The thing to keep in mind is that under Tony's context "better" (objective) =/= more fun (subjective). In that context, from a mathematical and design standpoint 4E is better, just like each previous edition has been "better" than what came before it. In other words, it works a lot broader and longer without "breaking".

But personal preference still decides what's fun for someone. Some people don't care one bit about the math, and others specifically like the goofy quirks inherent in different systems because it evokes the feelings they find fun.

From another angle, take broccoli. It's objectively better for a human body than Fritos. It has more vitamins, minerals, fiber and nutrients and isn't a starchy, deep-fried oil sponge. But that doesn't mean everyone prefers broccoli to Fritos. Depending on your bodily reactions, one or the other may even be more prone to giving you gas.

Of course another issue is the English language itself with multiple words having multiple meanings and the boatload of exceptions.

 

[Dannager]

I'm very analytical by nature, but I remain extremely skeptical of a claim that an RPG can be objectively better than another.

It's easy to pick at the idea that games can be judged objectively, because from a very real standpoint, it cannot be definitively said that something is better than something else; good and bad have mutable definitions.

However, these criticisms are little more than academic. For nearly all practical purposes, it's absolutely possible to judge whether one game is better than another.

For instance, professional video game reviewers do exactly that for a living. And, collectively and in aggregate, they set the nominative standard for what makes a game good. It's certainly possible to disagree with a particular review, but what this tells everyone else is that your opinions regarding video games are probably fairly far-removed from what most appreciate. Could one claim that Superman 64 is a better game than Super Metroid? Sure, they could, but that places them so far outside the norm that everyone listening might as well disregard anything they have to say on the topic.

The same can be applied, quite readily, to roleplaying game systems. Some are designed with care and well-considered principles, and others are slapped together haphazardly by amateurs. The former tend to play better than the latter.

We need to stop walking on eggshells when it comes to words like "better" or "worse", and the whole argument of, "You can't say that something is objectively better than something else!" really ought to be permanently retired from discussions of game editions, since that's a fundamentally non-productive statement and a great way to shut down an otherwise fruitful discussion.

 

[Lanefan]

The "bottom line" is that the edition wars are over, and those who despised 4e have won. 4e is dead. It will never be supported again (thanks the restrictiveness of the GSL). Rather than continue to dance and spit on it's grave, try winning gracefully. Show some dignity and good sportsmanship in victory.

Several things leap to mind on reading this:

1. Suggesting the edition wars are over merely because 4e's had to surrender takes a rather narrow view of the wars; as there's way more fights out there than just the pro-anti 4e battle. Believe me; in the last few years I've had some rather loud edition arguments (both in person and online) in which 4e was never mentioned!.

2. Saying 4e will never be supported again may be premature, in that 4e has something going for it no other edition really had: WotC has poured a pile of money into online support for it and it's hard to imagine them simply throwing all that away. Sure they may not add (much) to it going forward in the short term, but if 4e hangs around to any great extent in the community it wouldn't be that difficult to resume online support later.

2a. There's also the possibility that Hasbro will sell off (or farm out) the D&D franchise, at which point anything can happen depending largely on who buys it and what they want to do with it.

3. No edition is dead as long as someone keeps playing it. Just ask [MENTION=2885]diaglo[/MENTION]

Lan-"if the armistice has been signed why hasn't someone told the troops?"-efan

 

[Fifth Element]

The thing to keep in mind is that under Tony's context "better" (objective) =/= more fun (subjective). In that context, from a mathematical and design standpoint 4E is better, just like each previous edition has been "better" than what came before it. In other words, it works a lot broader and longer without "breaking".

But personal preference still decides what's fun for someone. Some people don't care one bit about the math, and others specifically like the goofy quirks inherent in different systems because it evokes the feelings they find fun.

That makes it entirely academic, though, doesn't it? The point of an RPG is not to have a mathematically "better" RPG, it's to play it and have fun. What's the point of calling an RPG "better" if said definition does not mean it's any better at doing what it's designed to do?

What I'm saying is, I reject any definition of a "better" RPG that does not take into consideration what an RPG is for.

 

[Fifth Element]

However, these criticisms are little more than academic. For nearly all practical purposes, it's absolutely possible to judge whether one game is better than another.

For instance, professional video game reviewers do exactly that for a living. And, collectively and in aggregate, they set the nominative standard for what makes a game good.

And once we have full agreement among reviewers about which games are best, we can say that games can be judged objectively. If it's absolutely possible to judge whether one game is better than another, objectively, then we would only need one game reviewer. He would do the checklist or whatever, and figure out which game is best. But instead we have many reviewers, each with their own preferences and biases, each rating games differently.

Just because most people prefer a particular game does not mean it is objectively better than other games. That's not what objectively means.

 

[Fifth Element]

1. Suggesting the edition wars are over merely because 4e's had to surrender takes a rather narrow view of the wars; as there's way more fights out there than just the pro-anti 4e battle. Believe me; in the last few years I've had some rather loud edition arguments (both in person and online) in which 4e was never mentioned!.

Absolutely. Edition wars aren't just 4E vs. whoever, they exist for every edition. And as these threads show, there are still those engaging in warring behaviour about 4E, even though said war has been "won".

2. Saying 4e will never be supported again may be premature, in that 4e has something going for it no other edition really had: WotC has poured a pile of money into online support for it and it's hard to imagine them simply throwing all that away. Sure they may not add (much) to it going forward in the short term, but if 4e hangs around to any great extent in the community it wouldn't be that difficult to resume online support later.

That's a good point. Are they going to "turn off" 4E subscriptions? That would seem like throwing money away. Who knows?

 

[JamesonCourage]

...the whole argument of, "You can't say that something is objectively better than something else!" really ought to be permanently retired from discussions of game editions, since that's a fundamentally non-productive statement and a great way to shut down an otherwise fruitful discussion.

Well, it's usually in response to "X is objectively better than Y" which is also pretty much completely unproductive. Besides people like me, Umbran, and Fifth Element disagreeing on the objectivity of it, we have people that object to it being "better" than their preferred edition, and people who already believe that it is "better" and so adds nothing to their opinion.

So, basically, when you say "you can't say that something is objectively better than something else" within the context of "edition X is objectively better [designed, from a technical point, whatever]", it's not productive, but neither is the claim that they're replying to. Saying something is "objectively better" is pretty much any regard to something else will get people who dislike the label and disagree with your "mischaracterization" of what they like, people who like your label and give support against the first group, and people who think objectively defining "better" in regards to something like "high quality" in RPG design to be a moving target, and unproductive from the start.

So, sure, let's ban "you can't say that something is objectively better than something else." But, let's ban it by never bringing up that Something is objectively "better" or "higher quality" or etc. than Something Else. Because, really, that's not at all productive either.

Instead, let's say what we like, what we dislike, and why we think something is better at doing what it intends to do. Saying "X is better" and leaving it at that just doesn't help the conversation. As always, play what you like