Quote from: jgants;361569I disagree with you almost completely here.  D&D is no more or less facilitating of role-playing in general than it ever was before.  

Then we will have to disagree.  When a fireball isn't actually a huge ball of actual fire, there is a problem.  That problem cascades into the role playing portion, because at that point, approximately the only thing to differentiate a fireball from Martyr's Retribution is the keyword 'radiant'.

QuoteYes, the powers rules are not consistent with in-world physics.  However, trying to do "creative" things with powers is hardly the beginning and end of roleplaying.  In fact, its something that some players never even really do.  Not everyone plays RPGs as problem-solving exercises.

And I didn't say it was the entirety of the experience, but it is a large part of it.  Not everyone plays poker for money, but without some kind of gamble involved, it isn't nearly as interesting.

It's the death of a thousand cuts.  No individual loss is particularly harmful, it's the aggregate.  Once the very things your character can do are strictly codified, you lose part of the essence of role playing, which is 'thinking outside the box'.  They were invented precisely because some guys got tired of moving their fancy Napoleanics around a sandbox and thought, 'hey what if instead of some disembodied Général, I were to take part in the battle more directly, as a soldier or grenadier?'  In other words, they grew tired of strict rules governing their actions.

QuoteIs it somewhat of a loss to the flavor of the game?  Yes.  Do I wish they would have not gone quite so over the top?  Yes.

I don't think it is a matter of 'over the top', I think it is a matter of reduction in choice.  If you wanted epic world spanning themes in a previous edition, start at 5th level.  Or 10th level.  Want to explore an unknown world as a commoner rising to greatness?  1st or 2nd level.  Magic-rich, magic-poor, hoards of otherworldly creatures or strictly mundane encounters with other humans...  the rules supported it all and just about anything else you wanted in a campaign.

Now?  2 at-wills, 2 encounters, and a daily.  Exactly 10 encounters to reach a new level.  You will have this many magic items of these levels, as per your wish list.  Adventures will have encounters comprised thusly, and two or maybe three skill challenges.  Any role playing you manage to slip in there is a bonus, but don't really strive for it or anything.

QuoteSee, here's the thing - it was not at all easy to extrapolate that kind of thing.  In fact, those kind of things led to hours upon hours upon hours of arguments for many of us.

This is going to sound snarky, but that is just how democracy works.

It may not have been simple to extrapolate those things, but no one promised an easy time of it.  Even in the 70s there were games and pastimes that allowed for non-complex social enjoyment.  Any number of board and card games give hours of fun without the need to interpret anything.  I am crazy about cribbage, because you can have several beers and shoot the breeze and still play a good game.  I don't want that same experience in my role playing, or I would just play cribbage all the time.

QuoteThe problem, as Seanchi said either in this thread or a different one, is that everyone will have their own idea of what "realistic" is.  They won't agree.  No one has a perfect understanding of physics, etc.  Maybe you or your group didn't have an issue, but tens of thousands of people did.

Actually, I don't think they had any problem with 'realistic'.  What they had a problem with is 'not winning'.  Or it's adjunct, 'not succeeding'.  Petty squabbles over eking out another point or two of damage, or why that 30' fall shouldn't have done as much damage are cloaked in 'realism', to be sure, but they were arguments about how the players didn't want to deal with even relatively minor setbacks.  Rules lawyers weren't a pain in the ass because they held up the game.  Rules lawyers were a pain in the ass because they held up the game to avoid the consequences of their bad decisions.

QuoteIt has always been that way.  It's the reason the 1e DMG had a "how to limit how spells work" section.  It's the reason spell descriptions kept getting longer every edition.

Not all, but some did.  I don't think addressing these complaints in that manner was necessarily the best way to handle it.

QuoteAD&D 1e and 2e games were filled with these kind of arguments.  Then 3e came along and tried to codify and standardize it a bit more for the sole purpose of trying to eliminate the problem.  But you can't codify everything, so it didn't work.

And what most people would take away from that lesson is that even more codification would produce continued failure.  Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

QuoteSo, what 4e did was create a trade-off.  It said, "instead of trying to codify physics and creating an environment of rules arguments, let's just make the rules really narrow".  It also gave some classes more interesting things to do with the trade-off of being a little less intuitive.

Hence, being more like a board game, and limiting the possibilities for role-playing and more importantly, interesting sessions.  The latitude for making grave mistakes also allows for the latitude for true greatness.  The programming language Java makes this exact mistake.  In trying to make sure that coders are not able to utterly auger a program through the memory stack from a simple mistake, the language is completely unable to do anything truly interesting.

QuoteIf it isn't someone's cup of tea, that's fine with me.  But I have a real problem when someone thinks that making the game less prone to arguments is somehow dumbing it down or making it less of a RPG.

Only if you think the arguments were separate from the experience.  In a way that no other social game allows, role playing encourages co-operation.  And that co-operation is achieved by compromise, group dynamics, and a diversity of opinion.  In most games today, people just expect the rules to make decisions for them.  RPGs, on the other hand, almost encourage obtaining a group consensus to make sure the rules suit your group for the maximum enjoyment.  And that is a far more valuable lesson, in my mind, than limiting a few disruptions here and there.

It is nearly the purest form of democracy one can find.

QuoteI also don't like it because the previous editions of D&D were all also quite flawed and most edition changes over the years have changed largely to fix things a lot of people complained about.

In as much as popularity doesn't necessarily equate to quality, pandering to popular complaints doesn't necessarily equate to improvement.  

I think you will find most children complain about vaccinations, but that doesn't hold sway in anyone's mind that vaccinations should be halted.  In regards to these complaints, looking back to the times, I think you will find that 'a lot of people' almost always meant 'the less than 1% of the gaming population that went to GenCon and/or wrote to Dragon'.  I imagine there was a good deal of overlap between the two.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;361590Well, as I was soundly schooled in another thread regarding the effects of throwing yourself on a hand grenade, the fact that it could happen means that the RAW intend that it should happen.

Actually, that wasn't said by anyone but you, just now. I'm beginning to understand why you had such problems with that thread - you didn't actually understand a damn thing that was said in it...

Seanchai

Can we leave that grenade shit in that other thread? PLEASE?

Good lord, pass the Motrin. :banghead:

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361578Certainly it would have been easier to say "It doesn't actually have any effect because all it does is create purple light.."

"Then why does it say fire?" I imagine Perkins just grabbed what came to mind, but I can see some...uncomfortableness surrounding an explanation about names vs. flavor vs. mechanical effects.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;361611I'm beginning to understand why you had such problems with that thread...

Because you shifted your argument for the sake of argument alone?  Good, I'm glad that's beginning to sink in.



!i!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361578Actually it's only like 4 borderline retarded guys on a single website that give me a hard time, but I notice they seem to have a hard time with a lot of people. So it's not just me.

Paranoid delusion just gets funnier every time I hear it.

QuoteReally, it's all just a huge corner case. I just love the moments when I see you guys argue with spittle-flecked vehemence about something and then suddenly reverse yourselves and argue the exact opposite.

Your version of reality certainly sounds more interesting than the one that goes on out here.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361578...but I notice they seem to have a hard time with a lot of people. So it's not just me.

Hee!  I just noticed this.  This is really, really funny coming from you.

!i!

I notice you guys are unable to address the topic! Are you to here to fight for conformity and stamp out dissent or actually to talk about games?

Ok, I admit it. I already know why you are here.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361626I notice you guys are unable to address the topic! Are you to here to fight for conformity and stamp out dissent or actually to talk about games?

Ok, I admit it. I already know why you are here.

See?  Comedy fucking gold.

I've been reading the thread with interest since it started to see people's opinions regarding 4e.  I've made a few posts with the specific intent of making fun of you after you started being an ass as usual.

!i!

Quote from: PaladinCA;361612Can we leave that grenade shit in that other thread? PLEASE?

Good lord, pass the Motrin. :banghead:

.....

Quote from: Doctor jeff37923 Frankenstein It's Alive!! ALIVE!!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361626I notice you guys are unable to address the topic! Are you to here to fight for conformity and stamp out dissent or actually to talk about games?

Ok, I admit it. I already know why you are here.

To counter your false accusations of sockpuppetry?

There really was more on-topic conversation in this thread before you showed up.

How many Dustin Hoffmans have we got here?

It's a fucking Rain Man convention.

I think we should introduce the [Rain Man] tag for certain threads to warn the innocent.

Guys, seriously. If you have anything to disagree with any of the points I've been making, please do so (as other people have been doing). That's called "participating in a discussion".


But if the real problem is you have some kind of problem with me being here, (or other related mental issue) and you just can't help but attack on sight.. then I guess you can seek some kind of therapy or counseling. But you are off the topic at that point.  That's called "you are a troubled individual".

Personally I don't think anything in 4E that has been mentioned has been particularly "innovative" (a spell you can use every round!), except when you look at the aggregate of community, tools, techniques, and playability. The innovation is the intersection of all of those things.  Nobody else has that and that's why 4E continue to rule like a medieval overlord to this day.

But eventually someone will figure this out. Suck it, haters!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361635Guys, seriously. If you have anything to disagree with any of the points I've been making, please do so (as other people have been doing). That's called "participating in a discussion".

Why don't you go ahead and make a point so we can see if we disagree or not?  Whining in your panties about the meanies not letting you shine is entertaining and all, but you really should present an opinion that isn't just another unsubtle marketing piece on why you are cool for playing the latest edition, or why the sockpuppet you weren't very good at disguising suddenly dropped off your talking points.  You will get extra points for not confusing Chainmail with a role playing game.

Executive summary:  Start "participating in a discussion" in good faith, and people will stop pointing out your douchebaggery.