Taking a Break

[rounser]

I specified pbp.

Then you're not talking about what I was referring to, which is a regular D&D game.

If you are specifically choosing to do something in the game that the DM is not ready for it is the same as doing something in the computer game that was not programed.

I've already covered the difference. Yes, in a computer game if you can't exit by the window because it's not programmed to let you, then you're stuck. A DM has the upper hand in this case, because he can improvise.

In the case of detailing an entire world on the fly, though, the computer is the clear winner. A DM cannot compete, and neither can the PnP modules and game settings on offer - they simply lack the time and the page count to come anywhere near what a CRPG setting can offer in terms of sandbox freedom.

Remember, CRPGs invented the Overworld, and are busy refining it, whereas PnP is still busy "going back to the dungeon" because that's all too complicated for mere human DMs.

 

[rounser]

I specified pbp.

Then you're not talking about what I was referring to, which is a regular D&D game.

If you are specifically choosing to do something in the game that the DM is not ready for it is the same as doing something in the computer game that was not programed.

I've already covered the difference. Yes, in a computer game if you can't exit by the window because it's not programmed to let you, then you're stuck. A DM has the upper hand in this case, because he can improvise.

In the case of detailing an entire world on the fly, though, the computer is the clear winner. A DM cannot compete, and neither can the PnP modules and game settings on offer - they simply lack the time, memory and the page count to come anywhere near what a CRPG setting can offer in terms of sandbox freedom.

Remember, CRPGs invented the Overworld, and are busy refining it, whereas PnP is still busy "going back to the dungeon" because that's all too complicated for mere human DMs.

 

[Crothian]

In the case of detailing an entire world on the fly, though, the computer is the clear winner.

That's not true though. A computer game cannot do it on the fly. It takes months or years of programming and graphic works to get the computer game up and running.

If you really want to continue this discussion though, you should fork it to its own thread.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nice.

If you know that certain terms will cause people to react negatively, and those terms are vague enough that you will have to define them before you can use them, is that not definitively trolling? What's the difference?

(1) We do not all agree on the meaning of the term "D&D".

(2) Some people react negatively to calling 4e, or 3e, "D&D".

(4) Therefore, we should not call 3e or 4e "D&D".

Sorry, but I don't think so. Calls to prevent "the use of inflammatory language" are, IMHO and IME, far more likely to be attempts to "purposefully discourage conversation" than use of those terms.

And, again, in one long thread we already demonstrated rather conclusively that, despite complaints about the "papercuppy-ness" of such language, we all have some relative idea of what is meant, and no other terms convey the same meaning.

When you are attempting to stiffle a word or phrase to which no other terms convey the same meaning, it is the meaning you are attempting to stiffle, pure and simple.

People have gone on at length about how 3e destroyed role play because it uses the battle map. Most people, I think disagree. Yet, now we have people claiming that using the battle map in 4e destroys role play and we're supposed to nod and agree?

Obviously not.

But there is a big difference between discussing whether or not focusing on minis damages role-playing, and attempting to prevent the topic from being discussed. And, frankly, as I said earlier, if you are not interested in discussing those topics, it is very, very easy to simply not do so. Hence, there are very, very few discussions of 4e rules that I participate in, and you don't see me dancing across 4e lovefests claiming that any points made are inflammatory.

Not liking something about a D&D edition, and saying so, isn't trolling. Attempting to break up any conversation that doesn't agree with your own personal outlook is.

IMHO, of course.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

How's this for a timely and absolutely textbook example of what I'm talking about:

From This thread

And, again, so what?

How is this different from reading the books and discovering you love 4e, and wanting to discuss that love with other likeminded folks? Why do you care that he doesn't like 4e, or that it reminds him of Diablo?

RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

(1) We do not all agree on the meaning of the term "D&D".

(2) Some people react negatively to calling 4e, or 3e, "D&D".

(4) Therefore, we should not call 3e or 4e "D&D".

Isn't it the other way around - some people think that either 3E or 4E are not "true D&D"? And since the game is still called D&D on the cover, it is D&D, so they are actually trying to say something else when they say "3E is not real D&D" or "4E is not real D&D".

It is a bit as if i'd say: "Raven Crowkring is not a real EN Worlder". What is this supposed to mean? What if I add the sentence "I will not post in his threads. If I am going to EN World, I want to talk with EN Worlders."

Why couldn't I just say: "I do not enjoy posting in threads with Raven Crowkring. I don't like his attitude/the topics he talks about/his avatar. He never wrote anything I agree with or provided valuable insights.
I prefer posting in threads with Eric Noah. He comes off as a nice guy in his posts, he has a lot of valuable RPG experience, and we can thank him for having this site in the first place".


(Names just chosen for illustration and not containing any actual judgements on my side - in fact, I like discussing with Raven. Of course, the part about Eric Noah is true.
For risks and side effects ask your doctor or apothecary. Illustrations not to scale. Batteries not included)

 

[Vurt]

Darn it, where are the frelling batteries!?! /me squints to read Mostrum_Ridcully's fine print.

I too am taking a bit of a break. The last few weeks, it's been difficult to get to EN World without first sitting through multiple timeouts and the like, my last few months messing around with this new incarnation of 4e by playing Keep on the Shadowfell have been absolutely heartbreaking for me, and the board's renewed moratorium on "edition wars" has left me nowhere to try to talk things out without fear of a flame-fest descending from multiple directions as the various factions try to vigorously defend their positions and/or try to get one another banned for "trying to squeek past the moratorium". This last bit may or may not actually be the case, but it certainly looks like it from time to time.

Which is to say, in trying to keep people from leaving in frustration at wading through vitriol, it's been keeping me away in frustration for not having a familiar forum to express my views. I've quite enjoyed EN World in the past, but the recent changes in the last few months (the move, the new front page, the seeming shift to 4e as a primary focus) have not been for the better, IMHO.

As an aside, I can't say I agree with Hussar's position that you just can't say certain things because someone might find them inflammatory. IIRC, the only censorship rule in effect is the one pertaining to Eric's grandma, and I've never heard it said that she objects to "pokemount" or "munchkins" or the like, only to swearing and rude references. If that is not the case, please let me know. Otherwise, folks should learn to chill out and relax a bit while reading things on the internet.

Communication and understanding is not bettered by censorship.

 

[Fifth Element]

(1) We do not all agree on the meaning of the term "D&D".

(2) Some people react negatively to calling 4e, or 3e, "D&D".

(4) Therefore, we should not call 3e or 4e "D&D".

This is a really poor example. "4E is not D&D" is just the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. There is an objective definition of D&D - a game published under the name D&D is, in fact, D&D. Some people then get into "well, it's not really D&D", which is the fallacy. But there are games that can be objectively be called D&D, because that's what they're named.

For a valid example, you need to find a term that has no objective definition.

 

[Fifth Element]

How's this for a timely and absolutely textbook example of what I'm talking about:

From This thread

I'm not sure that's a good example, because the poster doesn't actually say "4E is videogamey". The post essentially says "this specific aspect of 4E reminds me of a specific video game", which is a perfectly valid comment. It's not even offered in a negative light.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is a really poor example. "4E is not D&D" is just the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. There is an objective definition of D&D - a game published under the name D&D is, in fact, D&D. Some people then get into "well, it's not really D&D", which is the fallacy. But there are games that can be objectively be called D&D, because that's what they're named.

For a valid example, you need to find a term that has no objective definition.

This is actually the point. While "[a] game published under the name D&D" may be an objective definition (insofar as one is possible), it is not in fact, the objective meaning of the term D&D, which is a product of subjective valuation.

Even this "objective" definition is extremely questionable. If I published a game under the name "D&D" (regardless of what legal action WotC would then take), would it be D&D? Is D&D Monopoly D&D? If I bought the rights to the name and published Candyland under the moniker "D&D", would it make it D&D? Would it make previous publications of Candyland also D&D, if they were exactly the same rules/board/etc.?


RC