Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jeffh" data-source="post: 5413336" data-attributes="member: 2642">I'm not sure what you mean by &quot;logic&quot;.Logic is a set of principles for making sure you don't come to false conclusions from true premises. By itself, it is completely neutral on which rules are better.Common sense, which it sounds like you might actually have in mind, does not suggest that simpler rules are better - at most it suggests that all else being equal, simpler rules are better. The difference between the two positions is extremely important and almost universally ignored in online discussions such as this. The former claim is obviously false, because rules that are too simple just can't do a lot of the things they could do if they were a little more complex. The latter claim is obviously true - if two rulesets accomplish your goals equally well, of course the simpler ones are better.In short, speaking of &quot;simplicity&quot; as the culprit is a red herring - even if, for the sake of argument, I grant the (IMO ridiculous) claim that 4E is &quot;dumbed down&quot; from previous editions to any significant degree. Whatever it is you're objecting to, it can't be simplicity; if it were, you would either be complaining about something that doesn't exist, or saying something obviously false.The designers of the new edition simply have goals you disagree with. You don't want the rules to hang together logically or focus too heavily on tactical combat (though how you figure 1E and 2E, with their obvious roots in miniatures wargaming, are an improvement in this respect is lost on me). But you don't want the rules to be complex for the sake of being complex. That would be ridiculous, and it just confuses the issues to talk as though that were your complaint.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jeffh, post: 5413336, member: 2642"] I'm not sure what you mean by "logic". Logic is a set of principles for making sure you don't come to false conclusions from true premises. By itself, it is completely neutral on which rules are better. [I]Common sense,[/I] which it sounds like you might actually have in mind, does not suggest that simpler rules are better - at most it suggests that [I]all else being equal,[/I] simpler rules are better. The difference between the two positions is extremely important and almost universally ignored in online discussions such as this. The former claim is obviously false, because rules that are [I]too [/I]simple just can't do a lot of the things they could do if they were a little more complex. The latter claim is obviously true - if two rulesets accomplish your goals equally well, of [I]course[/I] the simpler ones are better. In short, speaking of "simplicity" as the culprit is a red herring - even if, for the sake of argument, I grant the (IMO ridiculous) claim that 4E is "dumbed down" from previous editions to any significant degree. Whatever it is you're objecting to, it can't be simplicity; if it were, you would either be complaining about something that doesn't exist, or saying something obviously false. The designers of the new edition simply have goals you disagree with. You don't want the rules to hang together logically or focus too heavily on tactical combat (though how you figure 1E and 2E, with their obvious roots in miniatures wargaming, are an improvement in this respect is lost on me). But you don't want the rules to be complex for the sake of being complex. That would be ridiculous, and it just confuses the issues to talk as though that were your complaint. [/QUOTE]

Verification