GNS doesn’t help me describe whether a rules system is coherent or easy to understand.

It doesn’t help me describe if a game is fun or not because if I assign a fun value to one or several parts of the GNS spectrum I now must squeeze each game I consider fun to play into the fun parts I have determined in GNS. It gets even more insidious if I use my GNS theory to pre-judge a game before I play it.

I have found that folks that just read 4e and don’t take it out for a test drive (and I mean really test it beyond a token single session) really don’t know the game. I give these folks less credence than those who genuinely tried the system and just didn’t like it. Its not for everyone.

But it was not said. Nor was it implied. But it was read into Dave’s original post, and then insisted on that it was meant. And that’s just not fair. Just as I didn’t assume mxy was against 4e for some unfounded reason, I’d appreciate it if mxy didn’t assume Dave was insulting those who dislike it.

Giving the other person a fair chance goes both ways.

Really, the reason I even got into this argument was because I felt the initial assumption was rude.

We all have to learn to give the other party the benefit of the doubt. It prevents lots of needless arguments.

Graham´s last post: Pathfinder 24-25 – Speed Run!

I think mxy’s point is that 4e seems to a large number of people (myself included) a pretty radical departure from the evolutionary direction of the previous editions. I think it’s a fair assessment.

It is odd that people can get so passionate about this sort of thing – I guess that’s the definition of fanboyism. I can also say that I have heard the “you’re afraid of change” thing spat out a good deal in these debates and for anyone who has taken the time to write an article analyzing the merits of one system over another that that is not fair. I understand wanting to pre-empt that argument as well.

joshx0rfz´s last post: Review: “Forgotten Heroes: Fang, Fist, and Song”

In no way do I believe you are wrong for disliking 4e. I don’t believe anyone can be wrong for liking or disliking something.

All I’m saying right now is that you’re overreacting to this article, which was merely trying to point out a humourous occurrence they found.

If I’m getting inflamatory, I apologise, but it gets very tiring hearing the same arguments over and over again. “You could do the same thing with a board/video/card game!” No, you really can’t, and I wish people would stop suggesting that.

Accusations of strawmanning are fine, when they’re true. But I hate being accused of it when it didn’t happen.

Really, I just want to find some peaceful ground, where we can all play whatever games we want to, without insulting each others’ preferences or assuming the other is doing so.

But when an article like this can elicit the kind of reaction we see here, with sides getting defensive and believing they’re being personally attacked, I lose a bit of hope.

Continue the discussion or not, good gaming.

Graham´s last post: Pathfinder 24-25 – Speed Run!

mxyzplk´s last post: Other d20 Clearance Stuff

Yeah… speaking of putting words in peoples’ mouths…

Nobody (in the article or comment thread) has even mentioned being afraid of change besides you. In fact, the word “change” only occurs once outside of your comments on this post.

The article isn’t saying anything about people being afraid of change, or any other strawman. We all agree that there are perfectly valid reasons to dislike 4e! It’s merely commenting on how similar many of the knee-jerk reactions against 3e were to the knee-jerk reactions against 4e.

You’re reading way more into this article than is there.

means that their long term goal is to try to squeeze the rest of the RP out of the RPG and make it an online collectible minis game

Unfounded assumptions for the win!

Because if you have an RPG that is nothing but deterministic combat rules, it’d probably be more enjoyable as a computer game, frankly, less math.

Yeah… because the combat is the main reason we play 4e.

I like 4e’s simpler focus on the main rules of the game, primarily because it stays out of the way of all the other parts of the RPG that I enjoy. The narrativistic aspect, the social aspect, etc.

You can not get the same thing out of a computer game, and it’s idiotic and insulting to even suggest so.

But that’s for the future, and not really relevant to the more direct “why are a lot of 3e players not uptaking 4e?”

Because not everyone likes every game, and not everyone likes the same things?

How about the other side, “why are the majority of 3e players embracing 4e?”

Graham´s last post: Pathfinder 24-25 – Speed Run!

I, and many D&D players I’ve spoken with, liked the more simulationist approach of previous versions of the game, and the rush towards gamism is a major change to the concept behind the game, and we don’t like that. It may still be technically within the definition of RPG, but it’s a very different RPG from what it was. You’re welcome to like the new direction, but my point esp. with this article is to explain why people that don’t like 4e don’t like it besides the strawman of “people are just afraid of change.”

That’s all. Is GNS the be all end all definition of RPGs? No, but it’s a good way to describe the change 4e has made from 3e. Is gamism bad? No, it’s a personal taste.

Then beyond that is the more speculative fear – that this move, plus the way they’re doing Insider, plus Hasbro’s view of WotC as their “digital initiative”, plus what they’ve done with Magic Online, plus Hasbro’s largely board game centric culture – means that their long term goal is to try to squeeze the rest of the RP out of the RPG and make it an online collectible minis game. Because if you have an RPG that is nothing but deterministic combat rules, it’d probably be more enjoyable as a computer game, frankly, less math. But that’s for the future, and not really relevant to the more direct “why are a lot of 3e players not uptaking 4e?”

mxyzplk´s last post: Pathfinder Cosmology

But this is of a piece with lines of argument against 4th Edition. For some reason, people aren’t content to dislike it. It has to be something else. It’s an MMO. No, wait, it’s a board game. No, wait, it’s a video game. No, wait, it’s a minis game.

I’m not sure I agree that GNS is the all-encompassing definition for RPGs. You don’t put games into buckets. Is Diplomacy an RPG? I’m not sure what GNS has to say about that, but it certainly doesn’t self-identify as such. And yet it’s difficult to argue that the wheeling and dealing that takes place in such a game is all that dissimilar from what happens at many role-playing sessions.

So, no, I don’t really accept that if it must have some golden ratio of gamism to simulationism to narrativism in order to be an RPG. The world’s a bit more complex than that, I’m afraid, and I think the definition of RPG is big enough to encompass much, much more than the inarguably narrow confines of RPG industry.

Matthew´s last post: I RAGE

Now why this may not be “objectively bad” per se I do think it’s an ill-advised move. One, because it goes against my personal preference, but two, because I think it is an industry leader trying to basically get out of the RPG business long term, which would be immensely harmful to the hobby in general. In Hasbro’s Q2 quarterly earnings call, Wizards of the Coast is described in toto as “our digital initiative.” No mention of 4e coming out even.

I don’t think video games are “bad,” I play plenty of WoW, but they are different from RPGs and I don’t really want one of the major RPGs transformed into a video game, or more specifically a computer-enhanced board/minis game.

mxyzplk´s last post: Pathfinder Cosmology

I love blanket statements! Woo!

This is the ultimate sad attempt at rationalizing criticism that does not deserve or benefit from rationalization.

So, I apologise for that.

The specific comments I refer to are between you and “TheElf”, and primarily from TheElf. Such as:

“And if you don’t want simulationism, there are better games than RPGs for you.”

What got it in my head to reply to you, however, was your followup comment:

“But I agree that chasing gamism in an RPG is probably a bad plan, as it focuses on the one area that can be completely replaced by computer games/board games.” (RPGs that are gamist are not trying to be board games.)

and

“board games are much more lucrative than RPGs, so I would not be surprised if they are just going to sacrifice D&D at the altar of branding and focus on those rather than its role-playing roots. But on the other hand, it’s a mistake to try to do that just by bastardizing the RPG; that will satisfy no one.” (Sacrificing D&D by making it more gamist? Bastardizing the RPG? Yeah, that really sounds as though you believe Gamism has equal value.)

So, you are correct, the article itself was decently balanced in its arguments. The comments were where the feelings of gamism being inferior came out.

I’m not even touching the comment about “gamist dreck” a few comments down.

Graham´s last post: Pathfinder 24-25 – Speed Run!

The actual quote from the article:

“My personal preferred approach is simulationist, with a dramatist streak, low on the gamism.
As a result, 4e doesn’t meet my expectations as much as previous editions have.”

Or another:

“I’m not saying that 4e is “bad” and I’m not saying the non-simulationist approach to RP is bad. But everyone sees the anti-4e furor, and those that don’t understand this say “Oh, everyone’s always afraid of change” and other such meaningless dismissives. ”

It seems like no matter how many pains I take to say “it’s just my opinion” or “other people have equally valid and different values” someone has to get their panties in a wad about how it’s absolutist. It’s an easy way for everyone to feel good about ignoring it, if it’s a dogmatist opinion being trumpeted forth as fact! Of course, that’s not the case. Read the article through to the end and I defy you to show anywhere that I am saying “all roleplaying games should be simulationist” or “say[ing] it’s objectively bad.” If you have different values in gaming and disagree, that’s fine. But it’s equally “bullshit” to be intellectually dishonest about what I or any other critic of 4e actually says. This is why there are two “camps” and hostility between them, because even the most balanced critique seems to generate people willing to forgo any sort of honest discussion and instead just toss lying smears. It’s not a presidential election, people.

mxyzplk´s last post: Pathfinder Cosmology

I understand the point with #2, and I miss the OGL as well. Though there are really only a couple companies doing absolutely nothing for 4e (I can’t find the link to the list at the moment, but oh well). The upcoming GSL revision may take care of some of this, too. (We can hope.)

#3, well, that’s just opinion. I find the rules to be far clearer and better-designed that 3.X, though they admittedly take some getting used to. In either case, it’s a “to each their own” thing.

From your “Is D&D 4e Really Roleplaying” post, though, I have to take issue. You use the threefold model to show that 4e is less simulationist, and is therefore a bad game as all roleplaying games should be simulationist.

Well, I’m sorry, but that’s just crap. The entire point of the threefold model is to show that there are three distinct ways to design a game, and (here’s the kicker) that each of them are equally valid.

Saying that 4e is bad because it’s less simulationist is like saying Risus is bad because it’s not simulationist, or Amber is bad because it’s not Gamist. It doesn’t work that way.

You don’t like it because it’s less simulationist? See, that’s fine. I don’t like Amber, for instance, because I like a bit of gamism in my games.

But to say it’s objectively bad? I’m sorry, but that’s just bullshit.

(As an aside, I’ve heard arguments that 4e is actually very simulationist. Simulationist, of course, not meaning “realistic” but simulating the game world well. Since 4e is only trying to simulate a high-action world of heroic fantasy, it has been argued that it does quite well in the simulationism realm.)

(As a second aside, metagaming really has nothing to do with simulationism. Is Sim City simulationist? The Sims? Civ I through IV? Age of Empires? All of these would largely be argued as simulationist, yet all are based around lots of metagaming. No, metagaming is not against simulationism. Metagaming is simply a playstyle preference.)

Like I said above, nobody here will tell anyone they’re wrong for disliking 4e. We’d just appreciate if they said “I dislike 4e” rather than “it’s just not a good game”, as the second one is most decidedly a personal opinion.

(Not to say something can’t be an objectively bad game. But 4e is most definitely not in this category, though it can of course be subjectively bad.)

…I’m rambling, aren’t I?

Graham´s last post: Pathfinder 24-25 – Speed Run!

My main complaints:

1. Back incompatibility, not mechanic-wise so much as fluff-wise. They took out or fundamentally changed basic races, classes, mechanics like Vancian spellcasting, such that those of us who have enjoyed e.g. Greyhawk for a long time look at it and say “Boy, doing that in 4e is going to be a lot of work.”

2. Retreat from openness. I loved all the 3p stuff out for 3e (bought Death in Freeport at Gen Con when 3e launched) and they’ve basically messed all that up, with the GSL most of the respected 3ps aren’t touching the system with a 10 foot pole.

3. I just don’t like the rules and think they’re poorly designed. They cleaned up some of the core mechanics, but added too many fiddly auras, conditions, 1-round effects, and too many hit points such that combats take even longer than in 3e. (Others have blogged about this too.)

From a more theoretical standpoint, for those not allergic to Threefold Model discussion, you can also read Is D&D 4e Really Roleplaying? where I talk about how the march from 1e to 2e to 3e seemed to value simulation pretty highly (reality/versimilitude of the game world) and 4e took a completely different direction – highly gamist with dramatist elements (encounter powers, minions). Some folks like that and it’s fine, but many were used to the simulationist values/direction of the game and so changing course so drastically makes us sad.

mxyzplk´s last post: Pathfinder Cosmology

faustusnotes´s last post: Compromise and Conceit Session 2: Ambush at Wood Creek

Reverend Mike´s last post: The World Must Be Destroyed…BUT HOW?!

faustusnotes´s last post: On Japan

Reverend Mike´s last post: The World Must Be Destroyed…BUT HOW?!

Mxyzplk: 3.5 D&D could have been a “money grab”, but if so it was one that fixed a lot of big problems with the game system (what sticks out most in my mind is how prestige class spell progression worked). I didn’t buy any 3.5 books because I didn’t see a reason to pay for all of it again, but when I actually got to play the revised rules I definitely saw the reasons for improving it.