So what's gold gonna be for?

[SpiderMonkey]

Why not? It's his analogy. If I don't like heroin, and I don't like a game element, then the two have that in common and the analogy stands. Granted, it's a bit exaggerated. Just because you don't like the implications of an analogy doesn't make it a false analogy. If he's trying to suggest that an element of DnD is unhealthy for you the way heroin is, then it's a simple matter of saying "I don't agree".

The reason it's a false analogy is exactly because it presupposes that an element of D&D can be unhealthy, not just for him but for all players. As I mentioned before, I agree with his points as long as he limits their validity to his own experience and values; traipsing them out as some form of absolute for all play styles is somewhat insulting, otherwise.

 

[Irda Ranger]

HEH. Thanks.

So what is Masters of Orion 3 and Star Control 3 then called? The Uwe Bolls?

Sadly, yes. It's a well known fact that any 4x Game with the number "3" in the title sucks. See also, Civilization 3.

I hope that Stardock either breaks this curse or skips directly to Galactic Civilizations 4. I would hate to see the "curse of the 3" befall them.

That doesn't make the genre any less awesome though. See also, GalCiv 1 and 2, Civilization 1, 2 and 4, Master of Orion 1 and 2, Master of Magic (an under-appreciated classic), and many others.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Action is what the game is about, so there's certainly nothing wrong with players who want to kick some monster butt.

In my experience, however, the game breaks down when PCs have too many powers. It becomes more and more difficult from a DM to create thrilling challenges. Furthermore, the player loses the thrill of acquiring power when power comes easily. So, to maintain the player's thrill of kicking butt, the PC's power level needs to increased only slowly. It's human nature to want a lot of power quickly. In my experience, however, players have a more satisfying game experience when they are constantly acquiring small power increases, rather than getting a lot of power quickly.

Not having too many powers doesn't necessarily mean getting fewer new powers, or gaining them more slowly. Look at Bo9S for an example of how this might be accomplished.

Also, does this mean you retract your earlier statement concerning players who like power acquisition?

 

[gizmo33]

Ok, then by your bizarro logic, I guess people are just buying those other types of books, then sacraficing them to their little shrines to appease the divine gods of out-dated game styles, in the hope that their mills generate extra units of flour per month.

"Out-dated"?! This is Dungeons and Dragons. Go tell the next person you meet that you play Dungeons and Dragons. And then tell them "but I play a more modern style". Anyway, if someone enjoys a certain kind of game, who cares? As for the rest of this, it's imaginative but weird. I wouldn't give flour bonuses for sacrificing game books - you must be talking about the Storyteller system.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Why not? It's his analogy. If I don't like heroin, and I don't like a game element, then the two have that in common and the analogy stands.

Godzilla is not a mammal. Big Bird is not a mammal. They have "not being a mammal" in common, and so for the purposes of argument from analogy, Big Bird is identical to Godzilla.

Or perhaps analogy is more than just linking together two unrelated concepts by virtue of trivial similarities.

 

[Clavis]

And if there are enough people who agree with you, their buying practices will impact those sales, and the vendor will have to react accordingly. I like having options. I don't want somebody deciding what's good for me or my hobby, and getting rid of options based on those subjective *value judgements*

Manipulating the market to create a demand for what one is selling is an important part of any competently-run advertising campaign. For example, WOTC is now trashing the same 3rd edition combat system that they once passionately defended. This is to create a dissatisfaction with 3rd edition, and a demand for 4th edition. Companies don't just listen to consumers and create products based on consumer demand. Often, promotions departments are tasked with marketing products that the public may never have asked for, but the company wants to sell. Sometimes, the consumers come to believe that they always wanted the product they were manipulated into buying.

A perfect real-world example is the historical destruction of the Los Angeles electric trolley system, which was bought up by National City Lines (a front for a cartel consisting of General Motors, Mack Truck, and various oil companies) for the express purpose of eliminating it and forcing LA to become a car-centered city. The people of Los Angeles didn't ask for their trolleys to be eliminated; the choice was made for them.

My point is somebody is always deciding what's good for you, whether you realize it or not.

 

[Clavis]

Now if you'd have worded it this way, I wouldn't have taken umbrage. I actually agree 100%. Because you've limited your claims to your experience (which syncs with mine), your statements here are more valid than in previous posts.

I just tend to take exception to claims of badwrongfun, regardless of how they're worded. The funny thing is, I actually agree with your point: I prefer slow increases in power, and I'd like a game where money is usuable outside of combat concerns without worries for sub-optimization.

The key word here is "prefer." I apologize about the rather polemic nature of my previous replies to your statements.

I likewise apologize if my posts have come across as needlessly polemic. I admit to sometimes exaggerating for dramatic effect.

 

[gizmo33]

The reason it's a false analogy is exactly because it presupposes that an element of D&D can be unhealthy, not just for him but for all players. As I mentioned before, I agree with his points as long as he limits their validity to his own experience and values; traipsing them out as some form of absolute for all play styles is somewhat insulting, otherwise.

The analogy is sufficient to establish the possibility that something is profitable in the short term without necessarily being good for the hobby. Obviously you disagree and so the analogy is unconvincing, but conflating this with some sort of logical error IMO is mistaken. You object to the premise of the analogy (I personally am not clear on what it is) but that's not grounds for assuming a logical error. I happen to like hack-n-slash type games (other types as well) but I don't find anything logically implausible about him saying that such games, or rolling d20 dice in general, is somehow bad for everyone's health. I don't know enough about the context to know whether or not his opinion, which I don't agree with, is insulting or not.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

My point is somebody is always deciding what's good for you, whether you realize it or not.

Which makes me glad that the folks who are writing 4E aren't a bunch of soulless economists, but are actually a group of people who really love the game and want more people to play it.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The analogy is sufficient to establish the possibility that something is profitable in the short term without necessarily being good for the hobby. Obviously you disagree and so the analogy is unconvincing, but conflating this with some sort of logical error IMO is mistaken. You object to the premise of the analogy (I personally am not clear on what it is) but that's not grounds for assuming a logical error. I happen to like hack-n-slash type games (other types as well) but I don't find anything logically implausible about him saying that such games, or rolling d20 dice in general, is somehow bad for everyone's health. I don't know enough about the context to know whether or not his opinion, which I don't agree with, is insulting or not.

Claiming that something is a false analogy is not usually a claim as to the logical validity of the argument, but rather the applicability of the invoked metaphor to the situation under discussion. The heroin argument is therefore a false analogy by virtue of its inapplicability to most situations, specifically those in which crunch-based game books are not harmful to the people who buy them.