Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9176859" data-attributes="member: 8461">"Meaningfully" is a loaded term, here. If you can cast it in the five minutes before raiding the dungeon, or if you have that much time between encounters, then it is "meaningfully" the same. Which is to say, if the effect of a successfully-cast spell is the same, then changing the circumstances under which it can be cast doesn't change what the spell is actually accomplishing.When you say "justification" here, the term is one that doesn't have a great deal of clarity. "Count as level 17" is in-and-of itself a metagame construction that doesn't have (very much) verisimilitude. (Which, I'll point out, we both agree on at this point.)The more salient point is that you're drawing what seems to be an artificial connection between the popularity of fighters and most games not getting into the higher levels of play. That doesn't strike me as something that's the syllogism you're making it into, i.e. "fighters are the most popular class; most games don't go above level 10; therefore, the reason fighters are popular is because most games don't go above level 10." I don't think you can take this as a given.I'll point out again that you're stating what seems like a personal preference as an objective fact. AD&D 1E/2E fighters had some better advantages in terms of saves and weapon specialization, sure, but the majority of players didn't like the restrictions on wizards, which is why those controls were ignored so often that they were formally rolled back in 3E and haven't been reinstated since. (I'm also not sure what you meant by a "level soft-cap," since humans didn't have those.)Well I don't know what you mean by "evidence" here, especially since personal preference is the raison d'etre of this entire thread. Or were you under the impression that there was some sort of objective truth being put forward here? Because the entire tenor of your posts at this point is both aggressive and defensive (e.g. when you start referring to people who have different takes on things as "pseudointellectual," you're at the point of name-calling rather than discussing). Which makes it ironic that your take on the linked article is "100% straight up misrepresenting things."I understand that a lot of people feel defensive that their preferred edition is the go-to for a good example of a bad example, or rather, an example of what a lot of people feel was the wrong way to make an edition of D&D. But the fact remains that it has performed the worst of all the 21st-century versions of the game. 5E's popularity isn't arguable, and 3.X not only lasted nearly twice as long as its successor, but it then got a new life for over a decade with a company that was able to rise to the #2 position in the market by catering to its fans. 4E simply didn't do as well, and while there are a lot of reasons why that was, the move away from verisimilitude was, in my opinion, a not-inconsiderable contributing factor.Let's leave aside that this does not meet the <a href="https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fallacy" target="_blank">definition</a> (in that just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it's deceptive, misleading, or false). Your position here is that the mismatch between powered and non-powered individuals is the reason why most games peter out around level 10; this doesn't strike me as nearly as true as you're presenting; a lot of groups have trouble keeping things going that long simply because groups will split up or stop playing for real-world reasons, or because they found another pastime (or game) more engaging (and if they do, that's not necessarily an indictment of how engaging the existing game was; something else being more fun doesn't mean that something else wasn't still fun).But in all honesty, this is turning into another tangent that has very little to do with verisimilitude, as we both already granted. For the sake of keeping the thread on track, I think we should turn back toward that topic, if you please.No, the major problem here is that you're (deliberately?) overlooking that I quoted those words from where they appeared in the dictionary.com definition of "verisimilitude" and then said that we as gamers redefined the word. I then went on at length about how we redefined it, and for what purpose, which was really the entire point of the OP.And so yes, it is correct for me to say that you're (re)introducing those terms here, and that doing so isn't helpful. Likewise, you're again coming off as extremely aggressive at this point, and it's dragging down the tenor of the thread. Please stop.Your exasperation is still showing through; leaving aside that non-magical "spike" recovery of hit points in 4E was a thing, and was a problem for a lot of people, arguing the examples doesn't mean that you're arguing the point.Nevertheless, there are criticisms to be made of narrative games, and the idea of dissociated mechanics (and why people find them unsatisfying) is very sound. If you want to argue personal preference, that's fine, but you're obscuring the discussion that we're trying to have about why so many people don't care for them, which is the entire point of this thread. You can't really say "your opinions are wrong," even if you dress it up as "your critique is invalid."The problem is that "can" doesn't always mean "does." Players will, inevitably, seek to minimize their weaknesses and overcome their restrictions. How much they can do that will vary, of course, but the effectiveness of those brakes is highly contextual in nature...though that's usually done via verisimilitude also.The TSR years' wizard didn't have risk or drawback, in terms of casting their spells, either. The control methods were the percentage chance to learn a new spell (and if you failed, you couldn't try again until you'd gained a level), the cap on how many spells of each level you could learn (which was often ignored), the need for higher Intelligence scores to cast higher-level spells (ability scores being harder, but by no means impossible, to raise in those editions), and spells being easier to disrupt during casting (due to more stringent concentration requirements and "segmented" casting times).Now, there were some variant wizards in 2E that had alternative restrictions (the wild mage, the sha'ir, etc.), but the basic wizard wasn't at risk simply by using the magic they already had.</blockquote>

Verification