D&D 4E The Usage of the Non-Sequitur "4e is a Tactical Skirmish Game"

[Manbearcat]

E: The user is stating an opinion (an unpopular one for sure) nothing more nothing less.

Keep calm and carry on.

That would fall under "some other form of catharsis" - So D. Posting or saying an opinion for the sake of hearing yourself talk or "just to be social" is just catharsis. Given the track record for volatility that it clearly engenders with the opposition at this point, the only "constructive end" that it could serve is A (legitimate effort to compel or persuade). I could willfully denigrate someone or their tastes in a callous manner (for the sole purpose of "just opining") but I'm pretty sure I should be held accountable for gratuitously inciting an emotional response and causing conversation to devolve (thus bad faith). Lack of awareness or aloofness, specifically in a medium that is designed as an "exchange within the arena of ideas" and specifically not amongst grown adults who are entrenched within the culture of the hobby, is not an exit strategy for the label of "bad faith." Perhaps the first time one could claim aloofness or lack of awareness as a reasonable exit strategy, assuming the user is truly naive to the implications, the connotation, and the cultural establishment.

Regardless of all of that, the question of the post was not; "How should a 4e advocate respond to a detractor using the phrase 4e is just/merely a Tactical Skirmish Game - hence not an RPG?" That is a useful question but easily answered - "Take the high ground" - as you stated. The post is asking a different question in order to take the temperature of the room/gain the perception of the receiver when the question is asked.

 

[Shadeydm]

That would fall under "some other form of catharsis" - So D. Posting or saying an opinion for the sake of hearing yourself talk or "just to be social" is just catharsis. Given the track record for volatility that it clearly engenders with the opposition at this point, the only "constructive end" that it could serve is A (legitimate effort to compel or persuade). I could willfully denigrate someone or their tastes in a callous manner (for the sole purpose of "just opining") but I'm pretty sure I should be held accountable for gratuitously inciting an emotional response and causing conversation to devolve (thus bad faith). Lack of awareness or aloofness, specifically in a medium that is designed as an "exchange within the arena of ideas" and specifically not amongst grown adults who are entrenched within the culture of the hobby, is not an exit strategy for the label of "bad faith." Perhaps the first time one could claim aloofness or lack of awareness as a reasonable exit strategy, assuming the user is truly naive to the implications, the connotation, and the cultural establishment.

Regardless of all of that, the question of the post was not; "How should a 4e advocate respond to a detractor using the phrase 4e is just/merely a Tactical Skirmish Game - hence not an RPG?" That is a useful question but easily answered - "Take the high ground" - as you stated. The post is asking a different question in order to take the temperature of the room/gain the perception of the receiver when the question is asked.

I'm quite sure there are plenty of people who don't like the usage
It seems clear you would prefer that he (or that usage) be banned, however its not personal and you are trying to make a personal mountain out of a mole hill. I'm sure there are some people who find my opinion that 4E caters to a super heroes with super powers playstyle (a pefectly legit style just not my DMing cup of tea) offensive and would like me (or my usage) banned as well. However it is in the end not an attack on anyone just my take on an edition I enjoy playing but refuse to DM.

Do you really think a poll is going change anything? I don't accept the options available and choose not to vote but what if its 99% the way you see it? Do you expect to influence Moderation to silence people's honest opinion because you get a bunch of people to agree its not popular?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

When the comment is prefaced with "just" or "glorified," I take it as 2, 3, or 4.

Sorry, can't get more specific than that.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

First off: not trying to be antagonistic here... just sharing my opinions

Regardless of all of that, the question of the post was not; "How should a 4e advocate respond to a detractor using the phrase 4e is just/merely a Tactical Skirmish Game - hence not an RPG?" That is a useful question but easily answered - "Take the high ground" - as you stated.

But is that the right answer? or could it appear as if you think that you are right and not willing to stoop to the level of discussing the opinions of those that are wrong?

There is easily justification from certain points of view and play experiences to say that 4e is just a glorified tactical skirmish game. If you were a new player and came to watch my once a month gaming session that has barely enough time to manage 1 epic level combat... you could easily walk away from the session thinking this. If you played a DnD Encounters series, you could form this opinion. If you read the rules in the PHB in isolation, or if you are relying on second-hand knowledge of the rules..
The list goes on.

In my opinion the 'right' answer to someone stating this is to ask 'Oh, what makes you think that?' Much better than getting defensive of your favored playstyle or opinion.

The post is asking a different question in order to take the temperature of the room/gain the perception of the receiver when the question is asked.

I am, regretfully, involved in lots of statistics, 'sensing sessions', and survey development at my work. Its not fun because it is so hard to step away from what I think is the answer when crafting a poll or survey. Your survey is weighted and, in admittedly an exaggeration, 'if someone snarkily asks if your face looks funny, do you think he is being snarky?'

Perhaps a poll asking what the user base thinks the poster of such a phrase might have justification for thinking so might be more apropos. Answers like 'ignorant of the full rules', 'opinion based on others blogs or remarks', 'play experience', ...

I have found that on first contact with what appears to be an attack against an idea, its best to find out why the person thinks what they said. Often times you will find a new perspective that you had not thought of before.

 

[Morrus]

Keep calm and carry on.

Unless you're a moderator, in which case:

a) Stay up all night waiting for the inevitable point where it needs to be closed; or -

b) Close it now and get some sleep tonight.

The phrase in question has transcended its own meaning; it is - literally - shorthand edition warring. The very existence of the phrase guarantees the war. Whether one thinks it should do or not is immaterial - it continues to do so, heedless of our opinions. It's an entrenched trigger phrase and carries several years' worth of baggage whether the writer wants it to or not.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm quite sure there are plenty of people who don't like the usage
It seems clear you would prefer that he (or that usage) be banned, however its not personal and you are trying to make a personal mountain out of a mole hill. I'm sure there are some people who find my opinion that 4E caters to a super heroes with super powers playstyle (a pefectly legit style just not my DMing cup of tea) offensive and would like me (or my usage) banned as well. However it is in the end not an attack on anyone just my take on an edition I enjoy playing but refuse to DM.

Do you really think a poll is going change anything? I don't accept the options available and choose not to vote but what if its 99% the way you see it? Do you expect to influence Moderation to silence people's honest opinion because you get a bunch of people to agree its not popular?

No. It means nothing to me. If I wanted moderation to do something about anything I would appeal directly to them. I don't do that nor will I ever. You will never see me report a post for anything. I will attempt to communicate as I am able and end communication when it is clear that discourse is either not the intent of the person I am communicating with or it is clear that we are at an impasse.

However, it is quite clear that, culturally, it is an issue and people (4e advocates specifically) see it as disruptive at best, gratuitously antagonistic at worst...and its track record for ending good conversation is lengthy at this point.

This poll is an effort to aggregate 4e advocates' position on the issue. Nothing more. It is a mere curiosity to me but it may be helpful for people legitimately trying to discuss edition disparities.

 

[Manbearcat]

There is easily justification from certain points of view and play experiences to say that 4e is just a glorified tactical skirmish game. If you were a new player and came to watch my once a month gaming session that has barely enough time to manage 1 epic level combat... you could easily walk away from the session thinking this. If you played a DnD Encounters series, you could form this opinion. If you read the rules in the PHB in isolation, or if you are relying on second-hand knowledge of the rules..
The list goes on.

The word "just", or the implied "just/solely/etc", carries with it meaning. "Just" implies that the scope of the antecedent (4e) is limited to (can incorporate nothing more than) whatever is subsequent to "just" (a Tactical Skirmish Game). This is either correct or incorrect. It is empirically provable either way. I call it a non-sequitur because by way of testimony of those who actually play it RAW and use the rules to produce considerably more than "a Tactical Skirmish Game", it is proven to not logically follow.

 

[Manbearcat]

Your survey is weighted and, in admittedly an exaggeration, 'if someone snarkily asks if your face looks funny, do you think he is being snarky?'

I disagree completely. See Morrus's post above and my immediately prior post. It is not that the survey is weighted, it is that the statement "4e is <just> a Tactical Skirmish Game" is loaded by its very nature (see my above post). In effect, it is saying that the ruleset, with regards to RPGing (our hobby), is shallow and trite and cannot incorporate actual RPGing (hence people using it interchangably with "4e is not an RPG."). That statement then, by proxy, transfers the weight of the implication onto the advocates; "when playing 4e, you are not an RPGer". The fact that the statement is loaded with 1st order and 2nd order implications is not within the locus of control of a poll asking about the reflexive response of those who are dealing with the loaded statement. Further, there are only so many motives that will underwrite such a statement on an internet message board (whose express purpose is to exchange ideas about our hobby in a congenial, polite, respectful fashion). I feel that the poll canvasses them; (i) persuade in good faith, (ii) gratuitously provoke, (iii) share in communion with like-minded thinkers (preach to the choir), (iv) achieve catharsis through celebration of the statement as a statement unto itself (high-fiving with those you share fellowship or merely opining to socially cavort or read your words on the internet).

Perhaps a poll asking what the user base thinks the poster of such a phrase might have justification for thinking so might be more apropos. Answers like 'ignorant of the full rules', 'opinion based on others blogs or remarks', 'play experience', ...

That is a good question and may provide an answer that may be illuminating. However, again, that is a completely separate question and not the question I wanted answered.

 

[El Mahdi]

I think the intent is the same as any like thing being said about anything:

The intent is to derrogatively minimalize something the poster doesn't like.


In my book, that's very uncool...and does more to minimalize the poster in my eyes, than it does to minimalize their target.

 

[olshanski]

Its the word "just" in the initial question that makes it snarky. (Response "B", "C", or "D"... all virtually identical)

Take out the word "just" and I think it could easily be part of "A", a valid attempt to convince someone. The tactical skirmish aspect of 4E is a robust part of the game, but it is not all of the game.

Frankly, if I read a review of 4E that didn't mention its strength as a tactical skirmish game I'd think the review was flawed.