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

[Manbearcat]

When someone says something disparaging about 4e, what I think they mean is extremely contextual -- and, in fact, might mean something different if said to me, or if said to friends, or if said to someone who does not yet play any form of D&D.

"something disparaging about 4e" is a gross generality that encompasses just about any slight possible from the trivial to the outrageous. What you are doing is an odd Reductio ad Absurdem but in the opposite direction (including all possible disparaging remarks such that a focused, specific, lofty charge is lost in the noise and rendered equivalent to things trite and mundane...therefore inconsequential). This specific post is focused. And focused for a reason. The "something disparaging about 4e" is "It is not an RPG." I want to know how that generic rhetorical charge is received by "4th edition players who have played the system and enjoyed a breadth of play that encompasses more than just Tactical Skirmish Gaming, specifically Roleplaying, and enjoy the game because of this full RPG (not shallow boardgaming) experience" - hence "4e advocates." Someone who disagrees with the charge theoretically and has experience to back it.

What constitutes a 4e Advocate?

"4th edition players who have played the system and enjoyed a breadth of play that encompasses more than just Tactical Skirmish Gaming, specifically Roleplaying, and enjoy the game because of this full RPG (not shallow boardgaming) experience." Someone who disagrees with the charge theoretically and has experience to back it.

 

[Jacob Marley]

"something disparaging about 4e" is a gross generality that encompasses just about any slight possible from the trivial to the outrageous. What you are doing is an odd Reductio ad Absurdem but in the opposite direction (including all possible disparaging remarks such that a focused, specific, lofty charge is lost in the noise and rendered equivalent to things trite and mundane...therefore inconsequential). This specific post is focused. And focused for a reason. The "something disparaging about 4e" is "It is not an RPG." I want to know how that generic rhetorical charge is received by "4th edition players who have played the system and enjoyed a breadth of play that encompasses more than just Tactical Skirmish Gaming, specifically Roleplaying, and enjoy the game because of this full RPG (not shallow boardgaming) experience" - hence "4e advocates." Someone who disagrees with the charge theoretically and has experience to back it.

I think you missed the point that [MENTION=59248]mneme[/MENTION] was making -- he can correct me if I'm wrong -- and I was agreeing with. The context of the discussion matters as to how we react to it.

For example, I am in a conversation with another poster. Over the course of the discussion -- with a lot of back and forth between us -- the other poster comments that "4e is a just a tactical skirmish game", or something to that effect. Now, my history with this poster, combined with the conversation we just had, may cause me to view the statement in a different light than if it were stated by someone who just dropped into the thread and made that one statement.

Or, to put it more succinctly, it depends.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think you missed the point that @mneme was making -- he can correct me if I'm wrong -- and I was agreeing with. The context of the discussion matters as to how we react to it.

For example, I am in a conversation with another poster. Over the course of the discussion -- with a lot of back and forth between us -- the other poster comments that "4e is a just a tactical skirmish game", or something to that effect. Now, my history with this poster, combined with the conversation we just had, may cause me to view the statement in a different light than if it were stated by someone who just dropped into the thread and made that one statement.

Or, to put it more succinctly, it depends.

Understood. Then perhaps you should choose 1 - The person is doing it in good faith and trying to convince you. Or you can abstain. I'm just asking for general 4e advocates' instinctive reaction (post edition wars) to that rhetoric. Rightly or wrongly. Fairly or unfairly. I'm exploring if it is, by its very nature, a caustic, well-poisoning, thread-destroying non-starter. Or if its, generally speaking, more benign than that.

 

[3 Man]

Obvious

I would say they are stating the obvious. 4e shines in tactical play and when 5e is live I hope to keep 4e versions of the party current so we can use the 4e rules for the big boss fight at the end of adventures.

 

[Obryn]

Wonder what would happen if the same poll were ran for phrases like "15 minute adventuring day" or "quadratic wizards/linear warriors", which I think are used to be inflammatory at least as often as the above but don't seem to be called out as such.

Leaving aside the utter wrong-headedness of trying to restrict who votes in a public poll or posts in a public thread for a moment... (Manbearcat, you're on your own there...)

These are specific, mechanical concerns. Just like, "Martial daily powers don't make sense" or "encounter-based design means I can't gradually wear the party down" or "rituals are poorly-managed and no substitute for strong utility magic." We can have a discussion about the merits and flaws there.

I have no beef with people who don't like 4e; I could care less. To each their own. Excluding 4e from the D&D (or in this case, RPG!) club is a different sort of statement, though. It goes pretty far beyond specific criticisms of mechanics. I am past sick of edition wars, and that sort of statement always looks like the person's angling for a fight.

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

These are specific, mechanical concerns. Just like, "Martial daily powers don't make sense" or "encounter-based design means I can't gradually wear the party down" or "rituals are poorly-managed and no substitute for strong utility magic." We can have a discussion about the merits and flaws there.

I have no beef with people who don't like 4e; I could care less. To each their own. Excluding 4e from the D&D (or in this case, RPG!) club is a different sort of statement, though. It goes pretty far beyond specific criticisms of mechanics. I am past sick of edition wars, and that sort of statement always looks like the person's angling for a fight.

I think the original phrase "tactical skirmish game" could be seen as an attempt to amalgamate mechanics that focus on miniatures and grid-based gaming, or a perceived emphasis on combat mechanics. The question at hand is whether it could be used in an attempt at substantive discourse or whether it is inherently prejudicial or inflammatory. My opinion is still the former. My stance is also that I don't use that particular term and find it misleading, but I don't think there's any need to get excited about these things on any side.

An analogy would be "3e is unbalanced" which is likewise so vague as to be almost meaningless and inaccurate to the extent that it has meaning, but may be used as a legitimate attempt to shorthand a variety of mechanical criticisms people have about the game.

I agree that more specific statements are more useful to discussion, but I don't think the vague ones are necessarily attempts at provocation.

Yes. You are. Voting in a poll vs Posting in a thread. The voting in the poll is for 4e advocates only. The posting in the thread is open to whomever would like to discuss the issue.

Ah. This message is not at all clear from your original post, as evidenced by several comments in this thread by people other than myself (including moderators and "4e advocates"). Even given this distinction, the sentiment still doesn't make a lot of sense. Also, if I were "witch hunting" I would go to the PF forum since that game actually has witches. I'm simply trying to do the same thing that you are purportedly getting at, facilitate an improved understanding of how other people perceive statements made on this forum.

 

[Obryn]

I think the original phrase "tactical skirmish game" could be seen as an attempt to amalgamate mechanics that focus on miniatures and grid-based gaming, or a perceived emphasis on combat mechanics. The question at hand is whether it could be used in an attempt at substantive discourse or whether it is inherently prejudicial or inflammatory. My opinion is still the former. My stance is also that I don't use that particular term and find it misleading, but I don't think there's any need to get excited about these things on any side.

Well, that's just it though - it's clear that 4e has strong and prevalent rules for grid-based combat. Anyone who says otherwise has never looked at the rule set.

It's the "just a..." part that causes problems, stated or unstated. Because then it's not an RPG - or at best it's players are pretending it is. I think the analogy is, "well, you can roleplay with Monopoly too, but that doesn't make it an RPG."

Also, I have no idea what a "4e advocate" is supposed to be. It's just more lazy filing of people into boxes and folders.

EDIT:
As for "3e is unbalanced," that's a vague and useless statement that gives very little clue as to the poster's position other than "raaar 3e". But - and this is the important part - it's still not trying to exclude 3e from the RPG or D&D club.

-O

 

[Manbearcat]

Leaving aside the utter wrong-headedness of trying to restrict who votes in a public poll or posts in a public thread for a moment... (Manbearcat, you're on your own there...)

Some commentors have stated that they feel that stating this offhandedly is a good-faith statement (to what end? Good faith must imply to convince otherwise it is gratuitous.). They have stated that the statement is not caustic to discourse (despite an extraordinary amount of evidence to the opposite) and that it doesn't derail threads down into edition war venom. So, who to best ask then 4e advocates (as they are the ones reacting...either emotionally or intellecturally is irrelevant...the effect on discourse is the same). If you are soliciting the specific opinion of a demographic (which by definition excludes those outside of the demographic), you should not include within the sample those who are either not 4e advocates or are 4e detractors.
The poll must be self-selecting as it is soliciting the opinion of a specific demographic in order to answer the specific question:


"What is the consenus reaction among 4e advocates when a commenter states '4e is just a tactical skirmish game?'"


So what do you ask them specifically?

- Do they believe it is a good faith effort to convince a 4e advocate that 4e mechanical ruleset does not encapsulate the RPG experience?
- Do they believe they are being willfully provactive?
- Do they believe they are stating this position just as reinforcement amongst fellow believers (preaching to the choir)?
- Do they believe they are celebrating the opinion, communally, with other detractors or some other form of catharsis such as "opining for the sake of opining on something they feel strongly about"?


There is no need to include corner case reactions that are not helpful to the survey as it just adds needless noise to the signal; The signal being 4e advocates reaction to detractors stating 4e is just a Tactical Skirmish Game.

I made a specific poll. For a specific end. That poll, by definition, REQUIRES an exclusive polling base. You may not like the poll. You may not like me. You may not think that the poll asks an important or interesting question. You may not like the result of the poll. But in order for me to be a hypocrite, I would have to demand a behavioral imperative that I myself cannot, or will not, fulfill the stipulations of. Nothing of the sort has happened here and the usage of the term "hypocrite", and the charge, is bizarre and unfair.

I can't stop non-advocates, neutral parties, or detractors from voting. I just requested that they do not (in good faith) to reduce the noise ratio and distill the signal of the question that specifically asks 4e advocates what their reaction is to a specific brand of rhetoric. Further, I cannot stop them from posting in the thread...nor did I request they do so. I really have no idea why you're even bothering with this line of...I'm not even sure how to classify it.

Voting in a poll vs Posting in a thread. The voting in the poll is for 4e advocates only. The posting in the thread is open to whomever would like to discuss the issue.

I didn't do that (forbid non-4e advocates from posting...not that I could anyway). At all. Discuss away. I fully support it. The more discussion the better! I never requested people not post. I just requested a self-selecting voter base (in good faith) so the coherency of the poll is maintained and the Signal:Noise ratio is reduced. For God's sake. I didn't even vote in the poll (nor will I). This bizarre witch hunt (This request was neither uncivil, unreasonable nor am I a hypocrite) is unfair and utterly tedious.

That wasn't my methodology due to my main consideration being answering a specific question and reducing the Signal:Noise ratio.

Also, I have no idea what a "4e advocate" is supposed to be. It's just more lazy filing of people into boxes and folders.

"4th edition players who have played the system and enjoyed a breadth of play that encompasses more than just Tactical Skirmish Gaming, specifically Roleplaying, and enjoy the game because of this full RPG (not shallow boardgaming) experience" - hence "4e advocates." Someone who disagrees with the charge theoretically and has experience to back it.

So far I'm a hypocrite, unreasonable, uncivil, don't know how to compose a poll (when science is my discipline) because I haven't needlessly inserted noise into the precise sample from which I'm trying to extract a signal, and lazy. Ok.

 

[Obryn]

I think you're taking this a bit personally. I think making boxes of "4e advocate" and "other" is lazy and unsound, not that you are lazy.

I'm done with that sort of useless division-making and categorization. It's needless (and, as I said, lazy), and only serves to parcel up the gaming population more and more. We have a lot more in common than otherwise.

Also, public polls on a web forum are not and will never be scientific no matter how many controls you try to place on them. They are utterly meaningless for extrapolation to any population other than "the people who specifically took this poll."

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

As for "3e is unbalanced," that's a vague and useless statement that gives very little clue as to the poster's position other than "raaar 3e". But - and this is the important part - it's still not trying to exclude 3e from the RPG or D&D club.

I've seen statements to the effect that "3e isn't balanced, therefore it can't be played as a game"; thus trying to exclude it from the "game" club. Believe me, there's no salient differences in the level of civility people show one edition vs the other.