# Taking a Break



## GoodKingJayIII (Jul 16, 2008)

Overall I've enjoyed this community.  It's full of insightful gamers and a lot of free, original content.  It's been a nice place to come and talk about and help improve my hobby.

But the focus seems to have shifted in the past 9-12 months.  The attitude seems to have shifted away from the (generally) positive and much closer to the (generally) negative.  People are more interested in talking about what they don't like instead of what they do.  This is a real shame, because I considered ENWorld one of the few havens where the mods and community worked together to create a pleasant environment of discourse.  I'm not saying people should not discuss their negative opinions.  But lately it seems these discussion degenerate into roundabout arguments and childish namecalling.  It's gotten to the point where I feel that I cannot discuss what I _like_, because it seems likely that, like a pack of roving wolves, detractors will descend upon my thoughts and rip them to shreds.

It's gotten to the point where I look at my games of preference and ask "Am I doing something wrong?  Is my game of choice really that bad?"  I've considered taking a long break from the hobby, maybe even leaving it entirely.  Of course I eventually realize that this is ludicrous, and that I am allowed to like whichever games I please.  But it's like getting kicked in the shin every day; there's no real damage at, but it still stings, is demoralizing as hell, and can eventually, can cause some real problems.

So I've come to the conclusion that the best thing for me to do is simply to back off, and maybe bow out entirely.  Which is a shame, because I was looking forward to taking advantage of the new blog feature, posting some new content I've been working on, and even become a supporter.  But I can't do any of these things if I always come away from this place feeling down and questioning all of my game-related decisions.

I'm not a founding member.  I don't have an absurdly high post count.  I often don't get to threads until they're well under way.  I don't have an awesome story hour.  I don't grace anyone's signature.  I'm not gaming with any of the mods.  In short, I'm a pretty average member, and generally go unnoticed around here.  I'm sure the snarky "who cares, thanks for sharing" reply is inevitable.  But I think it's important that I voice my opinion, because maybe someone who can take action will notice.  We'll see.

Anyway, thanks for reading.  I'm sure I'll still poke around here from to time, probably keep an eye on this thread in particular.  There are still Story Hours and other things I enjoy.  But I have to avoid most of this place to stay positive about my hobby, and that's what really disappoints me.  So, I'll see ya when I see ya!


----------



## shilsen (Jul 16, 2008)

Rule 12 for retaining sanity on the internet:

Thou shalt not care what a random stranger on the internet says or does.

Seriously, if I didn't hold firmly to the above dictum, I'd sometimes have a hard time on ENWorld too. But I do hold to it, so I just take the good when I find (and there's a LOT of good on ENWorld) it, ignore most of the bad, and am just incredibly amused by the bad that I don't ignore. Don't let the negative nellies get you down, GoodKingJayIII.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 16, 2008)

shilsen said:


> Rule 12 for retaining sanity on the internet:
> 
> Thou shalt not care what a random stranger on the internet says or does.
> 
> Seriously, if I didn't hold firmly to the above dictum, I'd sometimes have a hard time on ENWorld too. But I do hold to it, so I just take the good when I find (and there's a LOT of good on ENWorld) it, ignore most of the bad, and am just incredibly amused by the bad that I don't ignore. Don't let the negative nellies get you down, GoodKingJayIII.



What he said.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 16, 2008)

For what it's worth, the name _GoodKingJayIII_ rings a bell for me. I remember reading some of your posts. 

I understand your feelings, too. Sometimes it's just not as enjoyable as it could be or has been. 

And also, I think the "negativity" seems to ebb down a little bit - maybe it's a temporary thing or I am just better at avoiding the spiral-of-death threads, but I feel like I have read more reasonable discussions these days then in the previous weeks. Maybe things are really calming down...


----------



## Nonlethal Force (Jul 16, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:


> Overall I've enjoyed this community.  It's full of insightful gamers and a lot of free, original content.  It's been a nice place to come and talk about and help improve my hobby.
> 
> <snipped for space reasons>




I totally know where you are coming from.  I left ENWORLD about 9 months ago and considered the possibility that it might be permanent.  Only about a month ago did I feel "up" to coming back.  And now when I do come back - I've learned to take the advice Shilsen gave seriously and only go into threads where I know I won't get iritated.  For me, that means occasionally this forum, ocassionally meta, and 3.x forums.  That's all I go into anymore.



GoodKingJayIII said:


> But the focus seems to have shifted in the past 9-12 months.  The attitude seems to have shifted away from the (generally) positive and much closer to the (generally) negative.  I'm not a founding member.  I don't have an absurdly high post count.  I often don't get to threads until they're well under way.  I don't have an awesome story hour.  I don't grace anyone's signature.  I'm not gaming with any of the mods.  In short, I'm a pretty average member, and generally go unnoticed around here.  I'm sure the snarky "who cares, thanks for sharing" reply is inevitable.  But I think it's important that I voice my opinion, because maybe someone who can take action will notice.  We'll see.




Ditto for most of us.  Take some time off and come back when you're ready.  I'm sure ENWorld will be here when you are ready for it again.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And also, I think the "negativity" seems to ebb down a little bit - maybe it's a temporary thing or I am just better at avoiding the spiral-of-death threads, but I feel like I have read more reasonable discussions these days then in the previous weeks. Maybe things are really calming down...



Most of the worst offenders have been given involuntary vacation time by the mods, so they're either absent or reformed at this point.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 16, 2008)

If you feel that you are getting kicked in the shin from a messageboard post then either you are being attacked personally (which shouldn't be happening here thanks to great mods) or its possible that you are very sensitive about criticism of game that you enjoy. 

Shilsen is very wise. 

If you are happy with whatever game you are playing then the opinions of others can only have so much impact. I happen to like GURPS a lot but I don't expect a lot of others here to share thier love for it. 

Also keep in mind that opinions of game products (both positive and negative) are valuable to game designers. If everyone says they love everything a particular company makes (and it isn't true) then nothing ever happens to improve the quality of those products.


----------



## DeusExMachina (Jul 16, 2008)

I actually started feeling worse and worse about my games when I wa sreading the rules dicussion forums alot. So I stopped reading those and it helped, I must say...


----------



## smootrk (Jul 16, 2008)

I often feel much the same as OP.  Oddly, even Dragonsfoot seems nicer nowadays.


----------



## Nyarlathotep (Jul 16, 2008)

I've got to agree with the OP on this one. Sadly I don't think there is much that can be done about it.

The largest problem seems to be the great divide in the 3.x and 4E fanbase. Very few posters seem to be able to take a post at face value without construing an attack on their preferred system. It seems that every thread (particularly "first impression after playing threads") devolves into snide comments about the poster, usually to the effect that they are trying to start an edition war. Frankly, both the 3E and 4E fans are far too proactive in promoting their system of choice.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jul 16, 2008)

shilsen said:


> Rule 12 for retaining sanity on the internet:
> 
> Thou shalt not care what a random stranger on the internet says or does.




I can agree with that.  But here's the rub:  I'm already doing it.  Specifically, I don't visit websites and forums unless I care about the content.  If I have a succession of negative experiences, I back off because it's not worth my time or energy getting embroiled in debates where hordes of people talk around and over each other, and neither seems to realize that they are trying to force the other to alter their _opinions_, which is a difficult thing to do in real debates, let alone on web forums.

I come here because I (mostly) do care.  But lately I find myself caring less and less.  So why should I bother?

Obviously I haven't cut off all connections.  I'll still hang around.  But I'm wanting to read fewer and fewer threads lately, and if that's the case, what's the point?


----------



## Dragon Snack (Jul 16, 2008)

It can't all be laid at the feet of "edition wars", that's just the latest thing...

I feel much the same way as the OP.  There are a couple of things that I come back for, but I ignore 99% of what's here.  It's pretty sad that when I do report a post that nothing seems to be done about it (and this is a board where mods will post warnings in threads).

I have one player who used to post here who makes fun of "the boards" being stupid, something must have happened to give him that attitude.  I have another player who had over 20 people on their ignore list, but I haven't seen them posting here lately so they may be gone as well (we don't bring up "the boards" at game because of the first player).

ENWorld isn't a friendly place, but it's got some good info if you dig around or it.  I considered buying a community supporter account (and one for the other player who posts/posted here) when they had the "sale" a few months back, but then realized that I wouldn't actually pay for a place like this.

Not that I think this post will _help_ any.  Probably the opposite...


----------



## Schmoe (Jul 16, 2008)

That's too bad.  I'm surprised you don't find the posters here friendly.  For the most part, I think people here are courteous and helpful.  Perhaps there's been some impact with an influx of new players, hence new to the boards, and hence not familiar with conduct here as opposed to typical internet forums.

At any rate, it sounds like you might have (drums please) forum burn-out.  Especially if you're not interested in the hot topic, which seems to be edition controversy these days, you just might not be interested in what people are talking about right now.  Take a break for a month or two (or six, like me) and maybe you'll be interested in peeking in again to see what's happening.  If not, don't sweat it.  There are bigger things in life than an internet forum.


----------



## Maggan (Jul 16, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:


> I'm not a founding member.  I don't have an absurdly high post count.  I often don't get to threads until they're well under way.  I don't have an awesome story hour.  I don't grace anyone's signature.  I'm not gaming with any of the mods.  In short, I'm a pretty average member, and generally go unnoticed around here.




FWIW, that's something I could put in my sig.

/M


----------



## Rel (Jul 16, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:


> I'm not gaming with any of the mods.




Yeah me neither.   That should change at GenCon though!

But seriously, I hear where you're coming from.  It's undeniable that ENWorld is having a bit of an identity crisis lately.  It's not entirely unexpected but that doesn't make it more pleasant to live through.

If it makes you feel any better here's a couple things to consider:

First, you may think that you are "nobody of note" but that's not entirely true.  I know and recognized your username and what springs to mind is "solid contributor".  In other words, it's having folks like you here that makes us willing to deal with some of the other, more horrid, posters that require wrangling by us mods. *Rel stops short of singing Wind Beneath My Wings*

Also be assured that, while we're going through a rough patch, this is not the new status quo.  There are some discussions going on behind the scenes as to what can be done to make ENW the friendly, civil, informative place that we all know it can be.

I really hope you'll hang around to see those efforts come to fruition.  Because we need people here for whom that is a goal.  Regardless of your decision, you've been a welcome member here and I thank you for that.


----------



## Urbannen (Jul 16, 2008)

I agree with the OP somewhat.  I always thought ENWorld was pretty positive overall, and debates fairly objective.  Recently I've been reading threads and seeing more nasty arguments where before I would have expected all interesting posts.  I think the mods are trying what they can to reverse the trend.  I used to go on the MonteCook.com boards (early 2000's), and it was like that most all the time (if you know who Carhien is, you know what I'm talking about).  Of course, back then I think I _wanted _to be involved in nasty debates...  

This is a tough time for the hobby.  Factions are inevitable in this Microsoft age of mass conversion.  I think ENWorld is trying to deal with it as well as they can.  I play 3.5 and am neutral about 4E. 

Personally I would like a "General" forum in the 3E section, since right now it is only rules and house rules.


----------



## MadMaxim (Jul 16, 2008)

I still enjoy the community here even though it's seriously split because of the arrival of 4th edition, as Rel mentioned, the community is all over the place from extreme optimism to extreme pesssimism. I still think you can discuss anything rpg-related with the friendly people around here, even though I'm not what you would call a solid contributor. Many people respond to wildly different topics and I'm really glad to hear other people's opinions even if they don't mesh completely with my own, because that's how you get a discussion going about pros and cons of different things and seeing topics from another point of view. I'm sorry to hear you go, though, GoodKingJayIII. We'll save a seat for you when you come back


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Jul 17, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> If you feel that you are getting kicked in the shin from a messageboard post then either you are being attacked personally (which shouldn't be happening here thanks to great mods) or its possible that you are very sensitive about criticism of game that you enjoy.




Here's where it's tough to draw observations based on the internet. Knowing Jay in person, I can say that he's the most laid back guy in history. (Okay, maybe not all history, but recent history.) I'm still hanging around, but Jay's observations are spot on.


----------



## helium3 (Jul 17, 2008)

> it's not worth my time or energy getting embroiled in debates where hordes of people talk around and over each other, and neither seems to realize that they are trying to force the other to alter their opinions, which is a difficult thing to do in real debates, let alone on web forums.




I agree with this part wholeheartedly.

But, I also think that this is how web-forums tend to roll.

Taking a break is always a great idea. It's not like perusing a web-board is important work or something.


----------



## the Jester (Jul 17, 2008)

Rel said:


> First, you may think that you are "nobody of note" but that's not entirely true.  I know and recognized your username and what springs to mind is "solid contributor".




Agreed. 

Take a break if you need to, mang, but know that you _are_ noticed and _will_ be missed.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Jul 17, 2008)

I think that you are making a wise move GoodKingJayIII.  If you aren't enjoying things here at the moment then taking a break for a bit is a good idea.

I myself haven't been spending as much time here on EN World as late.  That's mainly due to 4E.  I'm not anti-4E or a 3.xE fanboi.  It is just that I have yet to buy 4E and don't plan to this year at least (although I probably will next year).  Most threads on the boards at the moment are about 4E and since I am not playing 4E I don't really have much interest or anything to add to those threads.

Hopefully in a few months things will die down and the General forum will become more "general" again, with people discussing things other than just 4E.  Until then I'll probably continue to hang out in Off-topic and a couple of the other boards while occasionally browsing the General forum.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 17, 2008)

For what it's worth, add me to the list of people who at the very least recognizes your name.

There's an unfortunate and oft repeated idea that I definitely think applies here.  Negative is louder than positive.  That is to say, people will be very vocal about what they find to be negative.  On the other hand, people tend not to comment about what they find to be positive.

However, I don't think it's just that.  I think that of late there has been a larger degree of fighting and a lesser degree of debate and discussion.  The prime example of this is the edition wars - I know there are civil threads about the edition differences, but they're buried by fighting.  Often I'm finding this is usually a handful of people going back and forth and not moving on, as if the topic can be won.  However, even with that, I think what we all need to be aware of is where we cross the line from discussion and debating the issue to "debating" opinion.  When that point of the conversation is reached, the thread is effectively done.

Personally, I'm hoping that it's the large influx of people brought about by the increased membership of the site and the release of 4E.  I'm hoping that it will settle down over time, much as the 3E turmoil did.

Anyway, if you're not enjoying the site, and you feel you have to step away, then that's what you should do.  Hopefully you'll come back, because ENWorld needs more people that have your mindset GoodKingJayIII.  Until then, best of luck to you and yours.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 17, 2008)

Nyarlathotep said:


> I've got to agree with the OP on this one. Sadly I don't think there is much that can be done about it.



I think a couple of weeks with the mods doing Whirlwind Attacks with their banhammers +5 (+10 vs. trolls) might do the trick.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Jul 17, 2008)

GoodKing,

Don't feel alone. I don't visit nearly as much as I normally do and I find myself more snappish with threadcrappers. I just tone down the visits for a month or two and then recheck the site. I've always considered this a place for roleplayers not for which edition or which brand of RPG you play but lately for those of us looking for content and ideas the creek has been dry.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 17, 2008)

Forum ignore helps a lot. I put three people on ignore this week, and the forums look much more friendly now.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jul 17, 2008)

Rel said:
			
		

> Also be assured that, while we're going through a rough patch, this is not the new status quo. There are some discussions going on behind the scenes as to what can be done to make ENW the friendly, civil, informative place that we all know it can be.




This is good to know.  In my tenure here the mods have always been solid enforcers of the rules without being overbearing.  I think they've had to step things up in recent months with everyone being hot and bothered over the new edition.  But it's nice to know you're brainstorming about how to get back to the good stuff.



			
				LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> There's an unfortunate and oft repeated idea that I definitely think applies here. Negative is louder than positive. That is to say, people will be very vocal about what they find to be negative. On the other hand, people tend not to comment about what they find to be positive.




I think this is true, but having been on both sides, I think there is a tendency by the "positives" to increase their volume.  It's a reaction that tends to lead to a repetitive cycle that ultimately goes nowhere.

This is part and parcel anywhere on internet forums, but the level of courtesy and discourse has always been much higher here.  However, though my evidence is only anecdotal and based on my singular point of view, I'm prepared to say that it's gotten worse over the past year.  Now that the new edition is out, hopefully things will die down.  But as someone else said, I don't think we can lay all the blame at 4e.



			
				Schmoe said:
			
		

> At any rate, it sounds like you might have (drums please) forum burn-out.




That's definitely part of it.  I spent a lot of time scouring this place for 4th edition tidbits.  Now I'm interested in the new content and discussion, but there's all this One True Game nonsense popping up, and not in the friendly diaglo way. 



			
				Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> Here's where it's tough to draw observations based on the internet. Knowing Jay in person, I can say that he's the most laid back guy in history. (Okay, maybe not all history, but recent history.) I'm still hanging around, but Jay's observations are spot on.




Thanks Bill.  Despite the distance, we need to do some gaming again!


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 17, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Forum ignore helps a lot. I put three people on ignore this week, and the forums look much more friendly now.



Well, the ignore feature, nice as it is, only helps to a certain degree:

You still see their posts when someone is quoting them and when one of them derails a thread, you'll immediately notice as well: If a 'mostly harmless (TM)' thread I've been interested in and maybe posted in 'explodes' overnight and is suddenly 3-5 pages longer, more often than not, it's one of my special friends' doing.
At least now you can fork a thread, once it's been completely derailed by someone.

Still, I'd like to commend the mods on doing a good job. I don't think there's much that could be done to improve the boards.

Anyway, taking a break is usually a good idea. I'm spending too much time hanging around here, as well.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2008)

I have to agree with you, GKJ.  EN World right now is a somewhat depressing place.  If we could get some good conversation topics going in General that are edition-neutral, it would help.  A lot.

Any ideas?


----------



## krissbeth (Jul 17, 2008)

Jay is good people.  

I agree with most of what he's said.

The result is... I'm at a loss for where to go for (not totally GM-focused) gaming forums now.  Sadness.


----------



## Rel (Jul 17, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I have to agree with you, GKJ.  EN World right now is a somewhat depressing place.  If we could get some good conversation topics going in General that are edition-neutral, it would help.  A lot.
> 
> Any ideas?





"Rel's GMing Skillz:  Amazing or Just Plain Awesome?"


----------



## Mark (Jul 17, 2008)

Do what you gotta do, GKJIII, but you will be missed.


----------



## Keldryn (Jul 17, 2008)

I can relate to what the OP is saying.  Even if you don't really care what other people on the internet think, permeating negative attitudes can really wear a person down after a while.  It's something that every online community struggles with at one time or another, and I've actually found ENWorld to be one of the better gaming-focused forums.  Try visiting RPG Codex or No Mutants Allowed sometime for a truly hostile, depressingly negative environment.  I love the original Fallout games, but I generally steer clear of NMA -- popping into their forums and saying that you like what you hear so far about Fallout 3 makes our edition wars look like a friendly chat over tea.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 18, 2008)

Rel said:


> "Rel's GMing Skillz:  Amazing or Just Plain Awesome?"



Might I suggest: "Mallus and Rolzup: Genius World-builders or World-building Geniuses?"


----------



## Rel (Jul 18, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Might I suggest: "Mallus and Rolzup: Genius World-builders or World-building Geniuses?"




It lacks humility, don't you think?


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jul 18, 2008)

Rel said:


> "Rel's GMing Skillz:  Amazing or Just Plain Awesome?"




I don't have enough experience to say one way or another.  Maybe we should start putting together RelCon 2009?


----------



## Mallus (Jul 18, 2008)

Rel said:


> It lacks humility, don't you think?



True... but it more than makes up for it in candor and forthrightness.


----------



## Eridanis (Jul 18, 2008)

Rel said:


> "Rel's GMing Skillz:  Amazing or Just Plain Awesome?"



I think I saw an email in my spam filter for this product. Something about GM enhancement. I was a little suspicious. 

GKJ, you've always been a good poster. Do what you have to do, but we are definitely aware of the problem and we're looking for ways to remind folks (especially newer members used to ways at other boards) that civility is one of the cornerstones of this community.


----------



## Rel (Jul 18, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:


> I don't have enough experience to say one way or another.  Maybe we should start putting together RelCon 2009?




Already done, my friend.  I'll be on display at GenCon as well as NC Game Day the first week of October.  You're formally invited to both events.



Mallus said:


> True... but it more than makes up for it in candor and forthrightness.




I like your style, Mallus.  I think we'll keep you around.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 18, 2008)

Rel said:


> Already done, my friend. I'll be on display at GenCon as well as NC Game Day the first week of October.




OK I have to ask. What exactly will it mean for you to be "on display" at these events? Does this mean you will be available for purchase?


----------



## Rel (Jul 18, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> OK I have to ask. What exactly will it mean for you to be "on display" at these events? Does this mean you will be available for purchase?




What kind of man do you think I am?

Actually, don't answer that.  We need to keep the thread Grandma Friendly.


----------



## Ashrum the Black (Jul 18, 2008)

ooooo, so close to being able to report a mod to the mods. 

-Ashrum


----------



## Twowolves (Jul 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I have to agree with you, GKJ.  EN World right now is a somewhat depressing place.






I had a somewhat lengthy reply to this, but the new boards ate it. So I guess that confirms what I was writing in the first place. 

I agree with GKJIII and of course, RC as I have quoted. I think a lot of the problem came from the fact that shortly after 4th ed was announced, many "new blood" posters signed up to ENWorld, and the edition warz threads ran amok. When the mods shut those down for a "temporary" 1 month period, it was a _de facto _declaration of victory for the 4th ed side. The rest have either vanished or become much less vocal. 

I once had ENWorld open at home and work 24/7, now I'm lucky if I bother to check the boards once or twice a week. If you aren't wild about 4th ed, ENWorld is a graveyard. IMHO, of course


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 18, 2008)

Twowolves said:


> If you aren't wild about 4th ed, ENWorld is a graveyard. IMHO, of course





Which is sad, if you think about it.  Really, if there are gaming topics that players of GURPS and 3.5 can sit down and talk about intelligently, surely there are topics that players of 3.5 and 4.0 can talk about without being at each other's throats.  The odds are pretty good, in fact, that most non-technical 3.x discussions and 4.0 discussions are mutually intelligable, and cross-discussion can be profitable.

Myself, I've recently become jazzed over Basic Fantasy.


----------



## smootrk (Jul 18, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Myself, I've recently become jazzed over Basic Fantasy.



As have I.  I have seen your presence in the forums there


----------



## Ginnel (Jul 18, 2008)

I think my view of the Original post is contrary to everyone elses, I joined ENWorld because I wanted to find out about 4th edition as I was and still am playing 3rd edition D&D, I arrived to find boards full of that information and the sneak peeks I was after.

But I also found plenty of non 4th Edition related stuff and I have enjoyed it muchly, plot hooks, problem players, artwork motivations, story hour and a hundred and one other fun posts quite easy to spot.

I can also go view the current rules discussions on 4th edition and ask queries about it too. True enough sometimes I see people spitting back and forth with barely disguised venom but like normal people spitting at each other I think of them as kids and move on to the polite interesting replies in the thread.

I guess I can't comment on the past without experience of the pre 4th ed hype version but currently ENWorld to me is friendly enough (waves to the Hive) 

I also recognise your username on the boards and don't have a bad word to say about it and will happily read your posts.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Jul 18, 2008)

Interesting point that perhaps some of us old-timers and casual posters are feeling left out because there are a lot of new kids on the block.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jul 19, 2008)

Twowolves said:


> If you aren't wild about 4th ed, ENWorld is a graveyard. IMHO, of course




The irony of this is that I enjoy 4th edition quite a bit.  But, it hasn't really diminished my love for 3.x; I have a lot of fond memories with that game, and will continue to play it as long as there's a group for it.

What I'm really tired of is, as RC has pointed out a few times, the constant fighting over which is better.  Of course there is no right answer to that, we're just spinning our wheels.


----------



## Gundark (Jul 21, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:


> Anyway, thanks for reading.  I'm sure I'll still poke around here from to time, probably keep an eye on this thread in particular.  There are still Story Hours and other things I enjoy.  But I have to avoid most of this place to stay positive about my hobby, and that's what really disappoints me.  So, I'll see ya when I see ya!





Jay I wanna say that I feel the same way...in fact I'm quiting Enworld too for the time being....I'm tired for all the reasons you mentioned.  I too may poke around here now and again, however I'm tired of the 3.5 vs 4e vs pathfinder, why the GSL/WotC sucks, and the threadcrapping (from people who should know better). 

Anyhow have fun guys (and girls) and I'll see ya in a month to a year (not sure which).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 23, 2008)

Well, I made an effort:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=236726

The problem is, right now, "edition wars" and "company wars" are all anyone seems willing to talk about.  

RC


----------



## racoffin (Jul 23, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Well, I made an effort:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=236726
> 
> The problem is, right now, "edition wars" and "company wars" are all anyone seems willing to talk about.
> 
> RC




Yeah, that seems to be the topics that draw the most attention, and the ones that cause the most problems. I've pretty much gone back to lurking, as I get bored of watching people scream in each others faces and be rude.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jul 23, 2008)

I could quote the OP and it would be what I want to say almost word-for-word.



racoffin said:


> Yeah, that seems to be the topics that draw the most attention, and the ones that cause the most problems. I've pretty much gone back to lurking, as I get bored of watching people scream in each others faces and be rude.




My thought exactly and why I haven't posted much recently. I have nothing to add to either discussion (or at least nothing that wouldn't be the same as pouring gasoline on a fire) and sometime all it seems I see is more forked threads. 

Add to that I'm a player so the DM side of the site isn't of the greatest interest to me. I liked seeing thoughts from the DM side of things which is why I signed up to begin with but even that has dimminished to me only being a fraction of the time I used to browse the site.


----------



## Roland55 (Jul 23, 2008)

Rel said:


> Yeah me neither.   That should change at GenCon though!
> 
> But seriously, I hear where you're coming from.  It's undeniable that ENWorld is having a bit of an identity crisis lately.  It's not entirely unexpected but that doesn't make it more pleasant to live through.
> 
> ...




That's refreshing ... good to hear.  Whether it works out or not, I appreciate the attempt (in advance, even).

Though I did become a Community Supporter, I was seriously considering a rather lengthy time-out myself.  Now, I think I'll hang around and see what happens.

Even if things don't change, it helps to remember how this forum compares to ... others.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 23, 2008)

Rel said:


> some of the other, more horrid, posters that require wrangling by us mods.






Ahem!  I'm _*standing right here!*_


----------



## Roland55 (Jul 23, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Ahem!  I'm _*standing right here!*_




Oh, that was you??  You might want to push that hood back a little ... couldn't see your face.

Now -- if the mean man is being rude to you, you can always report him, yes??


----------



## Grimstaff (Jul 24, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:


> But the focus seems to have shifted in the past 9-12 months. The attitude seems to have shifted away from the (generally) positive and much closer to the (generally) negative. People are more interested in talking about what they don't like instead of what they do. This is a real shame, because I considered ENWorld one of the few havens where the mods and community worked together to create a pleasant environment of discourse. I'm not saying people should not discuss their negative opinions. But lately it seems these discussion degenerate into roundabout arguments and childish namecalling. It's gotten to the point where I feel that I cannot discuss what I _like_, because it seems likely that, like a pack of roving wolves, detractors will descend upon my thoughts and rip them to shreds.




Very much in agreement here. As a long-time 3.5 fan/DM who is exploring 4E, its been extremely frustrating to see so much positive-minded discussion of the new edition immediately derailed by the same old cries of "video game!", "no roleplay!", etc. I don't remember so much negativity aimed at posts regarding C&C, True20, M20, BD&D, and it was fun to see discussions on these games while still chugging happily along with my 3.5 Wilderlands game. 

To add to my consternation, I even find myself getting drawn into this negativity and posting stuff I regret.

I find the assertion that its folks who are new to the boards behind all the fighting laughable. Some long-time posters here have boldly admitted to intentionally derailing positive threads. There is an ever-thinning line between expressing one's opinions and outright boorishness. I think its fair to say many folks have some genuine complaints about 4E and WotC, and there is no reason why their opinions shouldn't be heard, so perhaps an alternate forum should be established for folks to air their concerns? Maybe that would result in fewer threadcraps? Only one way to find out, I guess.

What would everyone think of a specific "Edition Wars" forum so the rest of us can get back sharing/discussing gaming ideas?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Well, I made an effort:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=236726
> 
> The problem is, right now, "edition wars" and "company wars" are all anyone seems willing to talk about.
> 
> RC




My problem is, the site's reliability right now doesn't even let me follow the threads I've already been in, so it's hard to find new interesting threads in the time between board crashes.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jul 24, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> Very much in agreement here. As a long-time 3.5 fan/DM who is exploring 4E, its been extremely frustrating to see so much positive-minded discussion of the new edition immediately derailed by the same old cries of "video game!", "no roleplay!", etc. I don't remember so much negativity aimed at posts regarding C&C, True20, M20, BD&D, and it was fun to see discussions on these games while still chugging happily along with my 3.5 Wilderlands game.




You seem to be coming from a very similar place as me.  Loved (and still love) 3rd edition, but also like 4th and very much want to run it.  I've also played a variety of different games, d20 or otherwise.  Nobody ever seemed to have a problem with that.  Why now?

My gut tells me that many of these people were expecting one thing and got another.  With a game like True20, there aren't as many expections.  But put the Dungeons & Dragons label on something, and it's a different story.  Hence, the outcry.

Obviously this is not the case for everyone; some people simply don't like it, for one reason or another.  Again, totally cool with that.  But why it should need to be reiterated at every opportunity, I'll never understand.



			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> My problem is, the site's reliability right now doesn't even let me follow the threads I've already been in, so it's hard to find new interesting threads in the time between board crashes.




While site stability has been pretty bad lately, I'm not really sure how that is contributing to the overall attitude shift I've seen.  In my experience, this shift started *well* before the EN2 launch.


----------



## Grimstaff (Jul 24, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:


> My gut tells me that many of these people were expecting one thing and got another. With a game like True20, there aren't as many expections. But put the Dungeons & Dragons label on something, and it's a different story. Hence, the outcry.
> 
> Obviously this is not the case for everyone; some people simply don't like it, for one reason or another. Again, totally cool with that. But why it should need to be reiterated at every opportunity, I'll never understand..




A few posters have stated they are intentionally poo-pooing 4E threads because they're afraid they'll have no one left to game with. While I can sympathize with that, I don't understand it, and creating a bad environment for discussion certainly won't expand the gaming community.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jul 24, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> A few posters have stated they are intentionally poo-pooing 4E threads because they're afraid they'll have no one left to game with. While I can sympathize with that, I don't understand it, and creating a bad environment for discussion certainly won't expand the gaming community.




Really?  I've noticed that when I talk to gamers about 4e, they seem less interested.  I'm afraid if I stop playing 3.x games, _I'll_ have no one to game with!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 24, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> Very much in agreement here. As a long-time 3.5 fan/DM who is exploring 4E, its been extremely frustrating to see so much positive-minded discussion of the new edition immediately derailed by the same old cries of "video game!", "no roleplay!", etc. I don't remember so much negativity aimed at posts regarding C&C, True20, M20, BD&D, and it was fun to see discussions on these games while still chugging happily along with my 3.5 Wilderlands game.




C&C, True20, M20, BD&D all might also be "video-gamey" lack "versimilitude" or "promote no role-play" if they were supposed to be the next edition of D&D. But some people seem to fear - and perhaps rightfully so - that if 4E is a success, they will be left alone with very few players available that still play "that old version of the game". 

C&C or True20 are not the "main-stream" game, they are an option that's nice to have, but 3E was a "safe haven". if you liked it, you would have countless of fans that you could play and discuss with... And this is a position to comfortable to give up. The move to 4E forces 3E fans* to make a change and a choice: Change from a popular game that suited their preferences, to a choice between a popular game that doesn't suit their play style and a unpopular game that suits their style. 

C&C fans or True20 fans made this change and choice willingly. But 3E fans are forced to make the same change and a choice. 

At least, that's the worst case scenario for a 3E fan.
A 4E fan is looking at a bright future - popular game that suites their preferences is what they can change to. 
Unless 3E fans "prove" that 4E is an inferior game and "destroy" its popularity... Hence the counter-reaction of 4E fans when people call their game video-gamey or "not role-playing". They have to fight these accusations in fear that some people believe it and avoid 4E. 

*) If I say 3E fans, of course I am refering to the subset of 3E fans that don't like D&D 4. There are certainly 3E fans that also like 4E, but those are less likely to incite edition wars. 
They can be caught in the fire - trying to debunk myths/accusations about each system, and unable to discuss the flaws and merits of each game without stuff turning into an edition war.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 24, 2008)

I think it is important to take into account, too, that when some folks were playing 3e, they suggested that certain problems existed that needed repair.  Then they started the process of repairing them.  There was a whole series of "Sense of Wonder" threads where I suggested that 3.x had certain problems -- including too much prep time, for instance -- about which I was told these problems were, essentially, all in my head.  Suddenly, though, 75-80% of my "Sense of Wonder" complaints are true, and obvious, and obvious to the same folks who previously claimed they were patently false.

Now, of course, these same people are making these same complaints about 3e, and claiming that any problems with 4e are all in my (and others') collective head.

It's frustrating.

On top of that, the move to 4E forces 4E fans to make a change and a choice:  Change from a popular game that suited their preferences, to a choice between a (perhaps) popular game that (perhaps) suits their play style and a (perhaps) unpopular game that (suddenly) no longer suits their style. 

A 4E fan is looking at a questionable future - considering the unpopularity of the GSL and many of WotC's current moves/policies/fiascos, will the game that they are changing to be popular a year from now?  Two?  Three?

Unless 4E fans "prove" that 3E is an inferior game and "destroy" its popularity...work already started by WotC in the build-up to 4e.  Hence the reaction of 3E fans when people trash their game.  They have to fight these accusations in fear that some people believe it and drop 3E. 

See?  Works both ways.  

The problem, IMHO, is that trashing 3e is currently popular, and trashing 4e isn't yet, because it's bright, shiny, and new.  Some folks don't like 4e, and make threads to discuss the same, which are threadcrapped by folks who do like 4e.  Meanwhile, some folks want to talk about the new thing they are exploring and enjoying, and those threads are threadcrapped by folks who don't like 4e.  IME, the first type of threadcrapping is going on a lot more than the second, but then that could just be because of the threads I'm reading.

I think we just have to accept (1) it's okay to like 4e, (2) it's okay to dislike 4e, (3) it's okay to like 3e, (4) it's okay to dislike 3e, etc., and get on with discussing the things we have in common.  

If we start making threads to talk about edition-neutral things, maybe it'll catch on.

Of course, as Grimstaff said, "To add to my consternation, I even find myself getting drawn into this negativity and posting stuff I regret."

Case in point.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 24, 2008)

[INSERT RAGE ABOUT UNAVAILABLE ENWORLD SEVER WHILE WRITING A LONG POST HERE]



Raven Crowking said:


> I think it is important to take into account, too, that when some folks were playing 3e, they suggested that certain problems existed that needed repair.  Then they started the process of repairing them.  There was a whole series of "Sense of Wonder" threads where I suggested that 3.x had certain problems -- including too much prep time, for instance -- about which I was told these problems were, essentially, all in my head.  Suddenly, though, 75-80% of my "Sense of Wonder" complaints are true, and obvious, and obvious to the same folks who previously claimed they were patently false.
> 
> Now, of course, these same people are making these same complaints about 3e, and claiming that any problems with 4e are all in my (and others') collective head.
> 
> It's frustrating.



Well, maybe it was ignored because there was also a lot of "background noise" or just wrong critic. The "Monk is overpowered" debates were common at the start. I don't know if you fell into the same trap or not (I don't remember that many details from the first 3E years, and I started playing some months after the initial release), but if such errors happened, it is no surprise that valid concerns also ended up being ignored. If people don't analyze flaws and merits of a system in detail, they are bound to miss critical detail and distinguish between valid and invalid critic. 



> On top of that, the move to 4E forces 4E fans to make a change and a choice:  Change from a popular game that suited their preferences, to a choice between a (perhaps) popular game that (perhaps) suits their play style and a (perhaps) unpopular game that (suddenly) no longer suits their style.
> 
> A 4E fan is looking at a questionable future - considering the unpopularity of the GSL and many of WotC's current moves/policies/fiascos, will the game that they are changing to be popular a year from now?  Two?  Three?
> 
> ...



Well, didn't I even say that in my post? 



> The problem, IMHO, is that trashing 3e is currently popular, and trashing 4e isn't yet, because it's bright, shiny, and new.  Some folks don't like 4e, and make threads to discuss the same, which are threadcrapped by folks who do like 4e.  Meanwhile, some folks want to talk about the new thing they are exploring and enjoying, and those threads are threadcrapped by folks who don't like 4e.  IME, the first type of threadcrapping is going on a lot more than the second, but then that could just be because of the threads I'm reading.



The whole "trashing" thing is what makes rational discussions so hard. It always force people into the defensive and only look for ways to defend themselves against perceived attacks. 



> I think we just have to accept (1) it's okay to like 4e, (2) it's okay to dislike 4e, (3) it's okay to like 3e, (4) it's okay to dislike 3e, etc., and get on with discussing the things we have in common.



Yes. But I think it's also important to note see only in this "dislike/like" black-white pattern. There is also "I like it for X, but think Y could be better". 

If someone says "Mechanic X in 4E is flawed! Hahah - you bought an inferior game system!" how can I even argue rationally here? 
It might be that mechanic X is flawed, but it doesn't follow the system is inferior or nothing has improved. There are other things that were fixed, and they might be of enough merit to make me prefer 4E about 3E, even if I still have to cope with some flaws. 



> If we start making threads to talk about edition-neutral things, maybe it'll catch on.



Maybe. But I think we also should discuss the individual systems flaws & merits and how we can learn from them. But maybe this is not yet the time, if we still devolve into edition wars?



> Of course, as Grimstaff said, "To add to my consternation, I even find myself getting drawn into this negativity and posting stuff I regret."
> 
> Case in point.
> 
> RC



Seeing myself dragged into edition wars is not a good thing.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 24, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:


> Overall I've enjoyed this community.  It's full of insightful gamers and a lot of free, original content.  It's been a nice place to come and talk about and help improve my hobby.
> 
> But the focus seems to have shifted in the past 9-12 months.  The attitude seems to have shifted away from the (generally) positive and much closer to the (generally) negative.  People are more interested in talking about what they don't like instead of what they do.  This is a real shame, because I considered ENWorld one of the few havens where the mods and community worked together to create a pleasant environment of discourse.  I'm not saying people should not discuss their negative opinions.  But lately it seems these discussion degenerate into roundabout arguments and childish namecalling.  It's gotten to the point where I feel that I cannot discuss what I _like_, because it seems likely that, like a pack of roving wolves, detractors will descend upon my thoughts and rip them to shreds.
> 
> ...




The reason this board seems so negative is because the "positive people" leave. 

Over all there seems to be only about 6 people who will rain on a thread, and its not always the same people.

The way I handle it is refuse to argue, ignore the mean posts, and only respond to the ones trying to be friendly and open minded. I don't always succeed, but its what I try to do.

So try and stick around and strengthen the positives about ENWorld. Don't let the "dark side" win.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Yes. But I think it's also important to note see only in this "dislike/like" black-white pattern. There is also "I like it for X, but think Y could be better".




Agreed.  When it was announced that 4e would be OGL and Necromancer Games was going to produce an "old school" version, I actually had some anticipation for it.  The only "real flaw" in 4e, IMHO, is that the language of the GSL restricts the "flavours" that the game can come in.  Necromancer-flavoured 4e would probably have hooked me.  Hence, anything that might encourage WotC/Hasbro to rethink the GSL approach is good, IMHO.



> Maybe. But I think we also should discuss the individual systems flaws & merits and how we can learn from them. But maybe this is not yet the time, if we still devolve into edition wars?




Well, if you look at 3e, the most productive thread are by those who bought into the overall system, but didn't necessarily love all of the subsystems or flavour so much that they couldn't reimagine it.  I expect the same is going to be true of 4e.  What I suspect will be _*really*_ interesting are fan-based mergers of the two systems.  3e does have problems, and 4e has offered some solutions to those problems.  Even if you don't want to buy into 4e entirely, you might want to steal from it.  And even if you are switching to 4e, you might want to convert things from 3e (or earlier editions).

The assertations of diaglo aside, I very much doubt that there is (or ever will be) "one true game".


RC


----------



## Jasperak (Jul 24, 2008)

Considered yourself quoted in a sig. 

I agree with the OP; I wish there was more maturity on the board. It seems like both sides have missionaries that act like pre-teens. No offense to any pre-teens that don't act like jerks.

Anyway I think to heck with 3e & 4e; I'm going to go play C&C or OD&D (maybe BXCMI).


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 25, 2008)

I think part of the problem is a lot of bitterness is creeping up in both 4e fans and people who dislike 4e.  I speak for more then myself, but a lot of people who dislike 4e are getting very tired, very fast, of seeing *any* criticism of 4e shot down, flamed, bludgeoned, and then reported for "attempting to start a system war."  Meanwhile, as someone else said, it's INCREDIBLY in style to beat 3e with a large mallet, and yet - strangely enough - I never see those same reports for "attempting to start a system war."  Even a completely positive review of 4e with two or three small nitpicks will have those nitpicks dissected over the course of five pages in an attempt to point out why they're wrong, and why 4e is flawless.

The problem with the "system wars" moderation is that there _is_ no moderation outside of locked threads - which, ironically, is what most of the trolls wanted in the first place.  People are going out of their way to cause problems, and they're being rewarded for it.  That's why everyone is getting negative - those that spread the negativity simply keep doing so, and those that aren't get tired and withdraw.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 25, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Meanwhile, as someone else said, it's INCREDIBLY in style to beat 3e with a large mallet, and yet - strangely enough - I never see those same reports for "attempting to start a system war."



Oh, I've seen them. I've seen several posters on both "sides" defend their preferred systems rabidly, while decrying the other. I've seen warnings issued to both "sides". (Yes, I insist on putting "sides" in " " every time.)

It seems to me both "sides" also suffer from a bit of a persecution complex, both claiming that the other "side" has worse offenders than they do, and that they never get called on it. There are a number of asshats out there; they are not exclusive to any one edition of D&D.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 25, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Oh, I've seen them. I've seen several posters on both "sides" defend their preferred systems rabidly, while decrying the other. I've seen warnings issued to both "sides". (Yes, I insist on putting "sides" in " " every time.)
> 
> It seems to me both "sides" also suffer from a bit of a persecution complex, both claiming that the other "side" has worse offenders than they do, and that they never get called on it. There are a number of asshats out there; they are not exclusive to any one edition of D&D.




Agreed on the asshats on both sides.  Admittingly, as one of the people who dislike 4e, I acknowledge that I can, do, and will notice the asshats on the opposite side far more then I would notice them on this side.  I still notice a few of them though - idiots and trolls are definately not limited to one fandom.


----------



## rounser (Jul 25, 2008)

> Unless 4E/3E fans "prove" that 4E/3E is an inferior game and "destroy" its popularity...



I don't think that far ahead.  For me, I'm just a bit peeved about some of what's been done with the game's flavour, and wanted to express some incredulity about it.

So no ulterior motive from me (or if there is one, I'm unaware of it).  The die has been cast, the horse has bolted, the balrog is in the woodpile (and it's snacking on a half-eaten "dragonborn warlord", whatever the heck that is).  

All this talk of "new Coke" is just wishful thinking that WOTC is going to recant - and IMO it's unrealistic to expect that to happen.


----------



## Branduil (Jul 25, 2008)

Criticism of any game system should be allowed. Of course, if you're going to use undefined "negative" terms like videogame-y, WOW-like, unfun, etc., without explanation that will inevitably cause problems.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 25, 2008)

Branduil said:


> Criticism of any game system should be allowed. Of course, if you're going to use undefined "negative" terms like videogame-y, WOW-like, unfun, etc., without explanation that will inevitably cause problems.




I can see the others except "videogame-y," as I've seen NEW players say 4e "feels like a video game."  I agree that it should be explained, but saying 4e feels like a video game isn't some horrifyingly insulting low blow that some people make it out to be.


----------



## Branduil (Jul 25, 2008)

Videogame-y is funny because it changes from an insult to a compliment depending on who is using it. It's still rarely a good description though, as it means nothing.

For instance, hit points are videogame-y.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jul 25, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I can see the others except "videogame-y," as I've seen NEW players say 4e "feels like a video game." I agree that it should be explained, but saying 4e feels like a video game isn't some horrifyingly insulting low blow that some people make it out to be.




I will agree if that is rephrased as "saying 4e feels like a video game isn't  INHERITLY the horrifyingly insulting low blow that some people make it out to be".

The problem is two-fold:

1)  Many posters here remember the "3e is anime!" cries from a few years back and (myself included here) feel that this is just the next step.  So anyone that was tired of the (justified or not) "Anime!" cries tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to "video-gamey!".  I have no doubt I am guilt of this reaction myself.

2) Most OPs that I have seen (I honestly think all of the ones I have seen - though I could easily be misrembering or missed some along the way) don't explain why they say it feels like video game or why they feel this is a bad thing.  And yes, I have seen 4e advocates that are just as bad in this regard.

It is very difficult (if not impossable) to have a deep discussion back and forth if both sides don't agree on what they are discussing.  If niether side specifies what they feel is "video gamey" one side could be talking about the new spell casting system while the other is talking about fighters and 'agro'.  How can we even discuss if something is good or bad for a system if we're not talking about the same thing?

I know you said you agree with this next section Cirno, but I'm going to go on because I think it needs to stated and an example given.

I'm hoping to finally play 4e this weekend (or at least mess around with it with another player from my 3e game).  Many of the things about 4e I think I'm going to like but the new Saving Throw system I'm worried has been overly simplifed.  It doesn't matter the caster level, spell level or level of the target - 10+ wins the day.  A first level caster vs a level 30 character or a level 30 caster versus a level 1 target - doesn't matter, it's the same target number.

I can see advantages (doesn't matter the caster level of guy who built the trap in the 3000 year old ruin) but I can't help but think something could have been done to bring more of "the characters" into it.  Say, the saving throw would be "X + 1/2 caster level" or something and then have feats/exploits that give bonuses to the save.

That is an honest worry I have about 4e.  Maybe it'll play fine or maybe I'll be saying "it's worse than I thought" in a week or so.  I have no doubt the above example will go over much better with many posters here than "4e has been dumbed down and therefore sucks" which is how many undetailed critizisms come across to me.

From my standpoint saying someone has problems with 4e is fine (heck, I just did that a couple paragraphs earlier).  Saying they don't like 4e is fine.  Even saying "X, Y and Z of 4e feels like a video game and I don't like it because of reasons 1, 2 and 3" is fine with me.  But if someone actually wants to have a conversation about what is bad or what is good about 4e they need to be a little more detailed about why the game is the worst thing to happen to the industry or why it is a blessing from above.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 25, 2008)

Branduil said:


> Videogame-y is funny because it changes from an insult to a compliment depending on who is using it. It's still rarely a good description though, as it means nothing.
> 
> For instance, hit points are videogame-y.




In another thread, I defined what I meant by videogame-y, and when I did, LostSoul (pro-4e) agreed with me that 4e is more videogame-y than 3e.  It just goes to show that the process of definition really can work.

(In my definition, a game is more like a videogame when the ability to attempt mundane tasks -- i.e., non-magical tasks -- has more constraint based upon design principles or what the author/s view as proper game flow.  It doesn't matter to me whether or not this is restricted solely to PCs or NPCs.  In a video game, several mundane actions which seem logical to the player may be impossible to attempt simply because the game designer didn't think that they should be attempted.  Likewise, mundane tasks that can only be attempted X times per day -- as opposed to, say, altering the chance of success based on circumstances -- make a game more videogame-y.  In this case, videogame-y is at the opposite pole from simulationism.  When Gygax wrote about why video games would never replace pnp RPGs, it was specificially this ability to simulate that he claimed was the primary difference....and I agree with him.)


RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 25, 2008)

Excellent point, Jedi_Solo. I share your concerns about saving throws, incidentally. If someone started a thread saying nothing but "4e sucks" it would be regarded as trolling on the basis that it says nothing substantive. But to say 4e is like a videogame is barely more substantive so ought to be regarded as trolling also. That it's expressing a genuinely held belief is irrelevant, the "4e sucks" post does that and is still worthless. Compare those comments to the criticisms made about 3e such as that casters are too powerful or prep is too time consuming which are far more precise.

We had a "What do you mean by videogame-y?" thread recently and the tremendous diversity of definitions (and videogames mentioned) imo demonstrated how useless the term is. Some took it to mean that 4e has a strong emphasis on combat, which would of course mean that every version of D&D has been videogame-y. And most other ttrpgs, too. If anything ttrpgs feature combat more than videogames do, given the large number of platforms, puzzles, flight sims and the like.

In closing I wish to add that D&D is too wargame-y. By this I mean that the level mechanic is derived from Chainmail's hero and superhero figures who took 4 and 8 hits to kill, respectively.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 25, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I acknowledge that I can, do, and will notice the asshats on the opposite side far more then I would notice them on this side.



Yeah, that's just human nature really. It's a confirmation bias - you pay more attention to things that support your position than to those that refute it. We all do it some extent or another.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 25, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:


> We had a "What do you mean by videogame-y?" thread recently and the tremendous diversity of definitions (and videogames mentioned) imo demonstrated how useless the term is.



True. When someone says something like "videogame-y" they are generally not talking about the game itself, but about their perceptions of the game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 25, 2008)

"X is a bad term.  It means nothing, and also has an offensive meaning."



Really, the same problem exists with a lot of terms.  We don't all agree, for example, on the meaning of "D&D", yet no one would suggest that we stop using the term.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 25, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> "X is a bad term.  It means nothing, and also has an offensive meaning."
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Maybe the solution is to not use such names and words in an offensive context?

"It is videogamey" or "it is not D&D" are good examples. There are situations where this can be a non-offensive statement. But way too often, they are not. (Shadowrun is not D&D. WoW is videogamey. That might work as non-offensive...)


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 25, 2008)

Worst.  Dear John.  Ever.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jul 25, 2008)

Hobo said:


> Worst.  Dear John.  Ever.




I'm assuming this is directed at me and my original post.  If I'm misunderstanding you, I'm sorry and can only say that your post is short and somewhat vague, so it's difficult for me to know exactly what you're talking about.

If my concerns are not important or valid to you, why post?  This is the kind of response that has generally turned me off to this place.  It doesn't add anything.  It's not surprising, I knew it would show up eventually.  Thankfully, every other post in this thread has been a lot more thoughtful.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 25, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Really, the same problem exists with a lot of terms.  We don't all agree, for example, on the meaning of "D&D", yet no one would suggest that we stop using the term.





See I'm not sure I agree there...

I mean, I think I'd be equally confused if people started saying that's so "D&Dey..."

As it stands "that's so videogamey" tends to just stand as a call and responce that could be replaced with. "That sucks!" "Yeah!"

I could do the same by saying, "D&D is so paper cupey." It doesn't add anything understandable to the discussion or debate because people then just add their own meaning in. 

It would be equally invalid to say "It's fun." and leave it at that, although fun, tends to have a much more universal meaning then a word like "videogamey."


I don't mind though if people say it's videogamey, and then explain what they mean, like you did above. (Although, I dissagree with how you're applying it to 4e, and feel it's a common problem of people applying a 3e mindset to the 4e rules.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 25, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Maybe the solution is to not use such names and words in an offensive context?





Excepting that we all know there are folks on this forum who are offended by calling 4e "D&D", or 3e "D&D", or probably even 2e, or 1e.  I don't think it is productive to limit discussion to what _*no one*_ might find offensive.

If you go onto a thread about "Why I don't like cake" you really shouldn't be offended about someone's discussion of finding cake too sugary, even if you know that all cakes are not sugary, and that "sugary" might not be the best term.  Likewise, if you dislike cakes, you shouldn't jump into every (or any) "My cake recipe" threads to complain about how you don't like cake.

IMHO, anyway.

Let those who don't like cake discuss why in "don't like cake" threads, let those who like cake discuss not only why, but what sort of cakes they're going to make, and who they are going to enjoy them with, in all sorts of "cake" threads.  Because we all know that there are a lot more "cake" threads than "don't like cake" threads right now.

Being offended that someone likes, or doesn't like, cake, is the source of the problem, IMHO.  The terminology used is largely irrelevant.


RC


----------



## Crothian (Jul 26, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:


> I'm not a founding member.  I don't have an absurdly high post count.  I often don't get to threads until they're well under way.




These things don't matter, trust me.  



> I don't have an awesome story hour.  I don't grace anyone's signature.  I'm not gaming with any of the mods.  In short, I'm a pretty average member, and generally go unnoticed around here.




My story hours are far from awesome, no one quotes me in sigs, I don't game with the mods.  But that stuff doesn't really matter either.  I'm pretty average as well and if you've seen the trouble I goto to get some things seen around here I go pretty much unnoticed to.  



> I'm sure the snarky "who cares, thanks for sharing" reply is inevitable.  But I think it's important that I voice my opinion, because maybe someone who can take action will notice.  We'll see.




People need to just ignore the snarky comments.  It is not easy and it does frustrate me.  But replying to them and letting them bother you doesn't help anything.  If you want someone who can take action to notice, then you have to start with yourself.  We can all take action and just not indulge in the bickering and the hatred.  It hasn't been easy but it is something I've been trying to do here.  Maybe it will work; maybe it won't.  But I think it is important to try.  Enjoy your time away from the boards.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 26, 2008)

Crothian said:


> no one quotes me in sigs



Please stand corrected.


----------



## Jack7 (Jul 26, 2008)

Well, I agree with you King Jay to some degree, and with Shilsen to some degree.

I used to come here on occasion and post mostly gaming theory and design articles and pieces I had written (on general gaming theory approaches, or milieu design and development, etc) -  that kind of thing. And I've noticed that not a lot of that type of activity goes on here now, comparatively speaking, and that's okay as far as I'm concerned. But I really don't much care about writing and posting articles like that anymore only to have them degenerate into arguments rather than debates. I'm probably a whole lot older than most of you guys, I was playing Chainmail before original D&D, and so I've been around awhile in that respect. So I'm very used to the idea of a vigorous debate (back when that kinda thing went on man to man rather than just by slinging electrons over a data stream) and to sharing Shilsen's views on the matter of strangers on the internet (I was around a long while before there was any such beastie). Nor do I give undue weight to the views of strangers by any other method of expression. They may be right, at which point I'll try to carefully analyze and benefit from their viewpoint, or they may be wrong, but I don't automatically assume their opinion is worth getting worked up about. But it did get to the point where everything written seemed to lead to a circular and practically never-ending argument (I got nothing against argument either, it's sometimes extremely useful and beneficial, I just don't have any interest in everything being an argument on most every occasion) and it just got to be incredibly tedious to argue everything ad infinitum when you could pretty much guess what the other guy was gonna say before he ever did. (And I'm not just talking about my threads, but a lot of threads I used to read in.) It is extremely tedious to respond to never ending arguments. There's not much gain or profit to it, it isn't really a form of problem solving or progressive action, and it leads to an awful lot of hard mileage without ever really getting anywhere worth going. Of course I can't blame everything on site activity, a lot of it also has to do with my work schedule and other projects to which I am currently devoted.

However, that being said, I still come here and lurk when I can, but mostly now I visit to data and information mine. Because this place does generate some very interesting ideas on occasion, and some of the posters do have fascinating theories every now and again.

And I think that a lot of the more interesting active has simply been suppressed by all of the ruckus surrounding the D&D 4th Edition (which personally I like). That was bound to happen, at least temporarily because of the fact that a lot of the energy and concentration that might have been devoted to other issues is now, sometimes rightfully, and sometimes rather spuriously, consumed with all of the factors and vectors concerning the new edition. So anytime there is both a theoretical and pragmatic transition of a paradigm to that degree I reckon most folks will be consumed by it, distracted by it, or at least diverted by it for a time, til the novelty wears off and people begin to return to different issues and interests. Also I think to some degree the problem here is structural change. The site is laid out differently and the discussions more fragmented and specialized, leading to some degree of segmentation, meaning that it is far more difficult to have "global and theoretical discussions" because there is less natural subject synchronicity and far more division of subject matter into non-overlapping, tightly controlled categories of inquiry and discussion. That will change over time I suspect, but it take some getting used to in the way people approach their particular areas of interest. There's 3rd Edition, and 4th Edition, and other games, and so on and so forth. I understand the technical reasoning and the operational and functional approach in regards to the board, but such a schema automatically reduces certain natural lines of pursuit to, "that's not really appropriate for this forum" no matter how interesting or proper the subject being discussed is in the general sense of things. Now I'm sure I'm not the first person to make these observations but it did occur to me as soon as I saw how the forums were being arranged and noted how the threads were being reconstructed accordingly.

So I very much sympathize with your general position and philosophical outlook on the matter, for a number of different reasons. But then again my take on these discussions is that, number one, it is just a game, and there is no sense in getting all riled up over a game. It isn't curing cancer or walking on Mars or saving a life, though any activity can be very interesting and useful if properly approached. And if others don't like your chosen game, or the way you handle things, well, that's their affair and it says nothing about you in particular. But number two is that things change over time and nothing ever remains static, it is either engaged a process of progress, or degeneration, or to be honest, as with most things, usually a little bit of both.

And my feeling about this site is that it is both advancing and progressing in some respects and degenerating and regressing in some respects, and as they say, "C'est la vie."

My general impression though is that over time the site will improve more so than not. So I still come here to read what folk will posit and to see what I can make of that. But if you feel you need a break then in my opinion go with your best instincts. People need breaks from practically everything on occasion (including their own interests), and taking a break usually leads to a more balanced and objective view than continuing along with what you've grown tired of just out of mere habit. Then later you can return if you wish, invigorated and all the wiser for having gained some objective perspective.

That's my opinion on the matter, and take it for what it is worth considering it comes from a stranger on the internet.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 26, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:


> I'm assuming this is directed at me and my original post.  If I'm misunderstanding you, I'm sorry and can only say that your post is short and somewhat vague, so it's difficult for me to know exactly what you're talking about.
> 
> If my concerns are not important or valid to you, why post?  This is the kind of response that has generally turned me off to this place.  It doesn't add anything.  It's not surprising, I knew it would show up eventually.  Thankfully, every other post in this thread has been a lot more thoughtful.



Sigh.  I'm the reason you're leaving, is it?  A little humor, and you feel insulted and have to take your ball and go home.

Fine.  Off you go, then.  Sorry to rain on your passive aggressive mock polite "flameout".  Apparently I can't help but offend someone by trying to lighten up a thread a bit.  My post doesn't have sufficient gravitas for your oh so serious announcement where you say, "hey, nobody knows me, but I'm _leaving_ because you've all gotten so mean, so maybe then you'll pay attention to me and miss me!" sign-off.  I lack sufficient grief at your leaving?  Is that it?

Or, if ENWorld hadn't removed the  smilie, I wouldn't have needed to type any of that at all.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 26, 2008)

<Forcefully wrenches the spotlight onto himself so that he can call someone else an attention whore...>


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> /snip
> 
> Being offended that someone likes, or doesn't like, cake, is the source of the problem, IMHO.  The terminology used is largely irrelevant.
> 
> ...




Utter ballocks.  Sorry, but, on an internet forum, where all we can do to communicate is to use typed words, terminology is the single most important element of communication.  There can be nothing more important to facilitate communication than agreeing on the terms.

How many threads turn into mindless pedantic crap because two (or more) posters cannot agree on basic terms?  Hell, Raven Crowking and myself have gone around the block more than a few times for EXACTLY this sort of thing.  When I did my anime challenge last year, the clearest thing that came out of that thread was that very, very few people had the slightest clue what anime actually meant.  People were pointing at stuff that was clearly not anime and calling it anime because they didn't like it.

Shadowfax is a pokemount. 

All posters have two choices when posting.  They can either post in clear, unambiguous language and attempt to make their point, or they can rely on disengenious, vague, unclear language that obfuscates and confuses.  Every, and I mean EVERY, hot button term belongs in the second category.

RC trumpets that he got someone to agree with his personal definition of videogamey.  But, unless every single person who reads EnWorld has read his definition, the next time he uses the term "videogamey", he's going to have to redifine it again.  And again.  And again.  All because he wants to use language which has a million different meanings.

Say what you mean.  Always.  Don't rely on vague terms, pretty much anything ending in "y" - videogamey, board gamey, card gamey whatever.  They have a million different connotations and all they do is derail any possible attempt at communication because now we have to stop, define what you mean by those terms, agree that the terms actually follow that definition and then continue on with the conversation.

Is it really too difficult to speak plainly without resorting to vague, nearly meaningless terms?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2008)

rounser said:


> I don't think that far ahead.  For me, I'm just a bit peeved about some of what's been done with the game's flavour, and wanted to express some incredulity about it.
> 
> So no ulterior motive from me (or if there is one, I'm unaware of it).  The die has been cast, the horse has bolted, the balrog is in the woodpile (and it's snacking on a half-eaten "dragonborn warlord", whatever the heck that is).
> 
> All this talk of "new Coke" is just wishful thinking that WOTC is going to recant - and IMO it's unrealistic to expect that to happen.




There's a slight difference between expressing "some incredulity about it" and:



rounser said:


> It's superior to what's going to be the 4E approach as well, with a class for every day of the year, based on the flimsiest of flim flam concepts, more thematically void rubbish which we saw a preview of with 3E.  "Classes" with no real theme or concept beyond it's crunch - like the warlord but worse.  That's gonna suck.




"That's gonna suck"?  Is a constructive criticism? 

I find it laughable that those who complain the loudest about being jumped on for criticizing 4e are posting things like this.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 26, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Excepting that we all know there are folks on this forum who are offended by calling 4e "D&D", or 3e "D&D", or probably even 2e, or 1e.  I don't think it is productive to limit discussion to what _*no one*_ might find offensive.



Intent matters. Sure, we can only speculate about that, but if I feel the intent is to insult the game, its designers or its player, then it was a wrong use. Sometimes it is enough to ask "Was insulting your intent", but sometimes, it's obvious.



> If you go onto a thread about "Why I don't like cake" you really shouldn't be offended about someone's discussion of finding cake too sugary, even if you know that all cakes are not sugary, and that "sugary" might not be the best term.  Likewise, if you dislike cakes, you shouldn't jump into every (or any) "My cake recipe" threads to complain about how you don't like cake.



The problem is that it sometimes doesn't appear to be just a matter of taste, or is not described as such. Sure, if you think the cake is to sweet for your taste, fine. But sometimes things are constructed as if it was "absolutely" the case. And then is where I would feel the need to intervene. 

Might you not also go into a thread with a title like "Whirlwind Attack + Greater Cleave + Bag of Rats - guaranteed one-round kill - 3E broken!" You know very well that no sane DM or group would allow this, but maybe an effort could be made to 'explain' this?




> When Gygax wrote about why video games would never replace pnp RPGs, it was specificially this ability to simulate that he claimed was the primary difference....and I agree with him.



And he would be wrong. Video Games are very good at simulation. What do you think all those Flight Simulators from Microsoft are doing? Or Racing Games (maybe not Trackmania Sunrise, but Collin McRae's Rally games). The all excel at simulating their enviroments. And games are continually getting better at it, even simulating entire city populations and their activities, providing physic engines that allow players to interact with the game enviromnent as if it was real. 

It's as humans that need short-hands to manage complexity of the stuff we want to simulate. That's not really the strength of RPGs in general - good short-hands are a strength of an individual RPG. 
The strength of RPGs is the fact that humans are way more flexible then computers. If the game rules itself don't provide tools to "simulate" something, a human player or game master can make a rule up, on the fly.

If a computer game doesn't have a climb mechanic, the game character can never hope to cross a wall. If a RPG doesn't have a climb mechanic, the DM can improvise some kind of check or roll - or just handwave it.


----------



## Phlebas (Jul 26, 2008)

to the OP (and everyone else thinking the same) - take the time off if you feel you need to recharge / refresh, but then please consider coming back as ENworld can't afford to lose its calmer voices


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Utter ballocks.




Well, that was unexpected.  I suppose you missed the part where I said that, when terminology was vague, defining it was important.



> When I did my anime challenge last year




Please don't get me started on that.  The clearest thing that came out of that thread, IMHO, was about how far people would go to first deny anime influences, and then that (when the terms of the bet had been met), how little they would keep their side of the bargain.

What we also learned was that, when judging artwork, even those who decided they were experts were not.



> Shadowfax is a pokemount.




And we discussed this to death.  Despite all the sturm and drang, no one could come up with an alternative to "pokemount" that meant the same thing as "pokemount".  The argument, essentially, is not between "clear, unambiguous language" (which, frankly, doesn't exist) and "disengenious, vague, unclear language that obfuscates and confuses".

You cannot both say what you mean and avoid the language that means what you wish to say.  That you might then jump in and argue that you don't know what "pokemount" means is besides the point.  If you know what it means enough to become offended by it, the chances are really, really good that the guy claiming "clear, unambguous language" is in fact being disengenious.

It is perfectly valid to ask for a clarification of what is meant.  "I don't know what you mean by videogame-y, can you clarify?" is reasonable.  When the person clarifies, it no longer matters what definition you thought he was using, you now know what is meant.  At that point, you can agree with what is meant, or you can disagree, but arguing instead aout the validity of the definition is nothing more or less than a disengenious, vague, attempt to obfuscate and confuse.

Hence your misunderstanding.  LostSoul didn't agree with my definition of videogame-y, he agreed that _*under my definition*_ 4e is more videogame-y than 3e.

That is the difference between attempting to communicate clearly, and instead attempting to attack the means of communication by calling it "meaningless".

Just as 90% of those who called 3e art "anime-y" meant "it has qualities similar to those of anime", 90% of those who call 4e (or 3e, for that matter) "videogame-y" mean "it has qualities similar to that of a videogame".  And the responses by those attempting to refute that assertation make it very, very clear that these are not "vague, nearly meaningless terms".  The proper follow-up question is "What qualities does X have that are similar to Y?"  LostSoul asked it, got an answer, and we were able to have a conversation with very little difficulty.

Where some have trouble, I suspect, is that they don't really want a conversation.  Of course, as always, I could be wrong.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> "That's gonna suck"?  Is a constructive criticism?




You seem unable to discern between _*constructive*_ criticism and _*valid*_ criticism.  Constructive criticism is, indeed, unseful when the people in question are actively asking for/listening to criticism with the intent to make changes based upon the same.  If you have been told that your input will have little effect --directly or indirectly -- valid criticism is just as valid (ahem) as constructive criticism.

"Here's my version of X class.  What do you think?" is a request for constructive criticism.  "Here's what we're doing, regardless of what you think" is not.



> I find it laughable that those who complain the loudest about being jumped on for criticizing 4e are posting things like this.




I do, too.

"X sucks", when written on the Internet, should IMHO _*always*_ be read as "IMHO X sucks".  It is laughable that anyone should be jumped on for having the opinion that X sucks.  Especially where X is something, like a game mechanic, whose value isn't objective.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Intent matters. Sure, we can only speculate about that, but if I feel the intent is to insult the game, its designers or its player, then it was a wrong use.




If "express disapproval of" is insult, then is it wrong to express disapproval of the game?  These seems a very problematic...um....problem to me.

Also, are you then agreeing that WotC's campaign of "3e bashing" prior to the release of 4e was a "wrong use"?



> The problem is that it sometimes doesn't appear to be just a matter of taste, or is not described as such. Sure, if you think the cake is to sweet for your taste, fine. But sometimes things are constructed as if it was "absolutely" the case.




"X sucks", when written on the Internet, should IMHO always be read as "IMHO X sucks".  Especially when X is an item whose value is not objective, such as a game or game element.



> Might you not also go into a thread with a title like "Whirlwind Attack + Greater Cleave + Bag of Rats - guaranteed one-round kill - 3E broken!" You know very well that no sane DM or group would allow this, but maybe an effort could be made to 'explain' this?




Depends very much on the context of the OP, doesn't it?  Does the OP think that this is a real problem, or is the OP venting?  Objectively, the OP would be right in saying that the combination is a break in the rules.  Subjectively, if that break in the rules is causing you problems, it might be better to ignore it.  Also, subjectively, if that combination breaks the game for you, the game is broken.  Of course, any sufficiently complex set of rules is going to contain problems of this nature.



> And he would be wrong. Video Games are very good at simulation.




Video games are very good at simulating what the programmer(s) thought you should be doing.  They are not good at simulating a vibrant world.  You cannot land the Microsoft flight simulator, go into the airport, and get a coffee.  If there is a "break" in the code of a racing game (such as your bag of rats example in 3e), the game cannot decide that it ruins the fun to let you exploit it.

The need for short-hands is a need related to the mathematical complexity of a game.  Computers do indeed handle mathematical complexity better than humans.  However, a human can roleplay without a ruleset.  It you had read what I had written (or if I had written it more clearly) I don't think we'd be disagreeing.  By simulation both I and Gygax (in his original article) meant the kind of _*open-ended*_ simulation that you agree a computer cannot provide.

Well, short of holodeck-style AI, anyway.  

The more a game builds limitations into the mundane (i.e., non-supernatural) actions a character might attempt, the more it resembles a videogame in this aspect.....and the less it plays to the greatest strength of pnp rpgs, IMHO....that if a reasonable being could/should attempt it, so can/should you.


RC


----------



## rounser (Jul 26, 2008)

If only 4E _were_ more videogamey.  Baldurs Gate II videogamey, or Planescape: Torment videogamey.  Those games rock.


----------



## Rel (Jul 26, 2008)

It might be days before Hobo realizes that I've threadbanned him.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 26, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If "express disapproval of" is insult, then is it wrong to express disapproval of the game?  These seems a very problematic...um....problem to me.
> 
> Also, are you then agreeing that WotC's campaign of "3e bashing" prior to the release of 4e was a "wrong use"?



I liked them explaining their changes and using the "short-comings" of 3E. I know only one real bashing example, and that was an article on Swarms by Mike Mearls - and sounded very much like in jest.



> Video games are very good at simulating what the programmer(s) thought you should be doing.  They are not good at simulating a vibrant world.  You cannot land the Microsoft flight simulator, go into the airport, and get a coffee.  If there is a "break" in the code of a racing game (such as your bag of rats example in 3e), the game cannot decide that it ruins the fun to let you exploit it.
> 
> The need for short-hands is a need related to the mathematical complexity of a game.  Computers do indeed handle mathematical complexity better than humans.  However, a human can roleplay without a ruleset.  It you had read what I had written (or if I had written it more clearly) I don't think we'd be disagreeing.  By simulation both I and Gygax (in his original article) meant the kind of _*open-ended*_ simulation that you agree a computer cannot provide.



And that open-ended nature is not a mere feature of the rule system - every computer game could be made more complex, and if someone wanted, he could probably use the Flight Simulator to create a first-person shooter or sims-like perspective where you can land and get yourself a coffee. 
You can expand rules as much as you like, in the end you will always have some limitations - and that are the limitations a DM and his players can over-come, by improvisation. 
If there are no rules for parachuting in Shadowrun 3.0. I can improvise something. If there are no parachute mechanics in Grand Theft Auto, I can never do it. 



> Well, short of holodeck-style AI, anyway.
> 
> The more a game builds limitations into the mundane (i.e., non-supernatural) actions a character might attempt, the more it resembles a videogame in this aspect.....and the less it plays to the greatest strength of pnp rpgs, IMHO....that if a reasonable being could/should attempt it, so can/should you.
> 
> RC



I think that has no relation to the strengths of RPGs over video-games. The strength of the RPG is the attitude "Yes, you can...", that computer games so far are unable to achieve.


----------



## Mark (Jul 26, 2008)

Rel said:


> It might be days before Hobo realizes that I've threadbanned him.





_Please, do not discuss moderator decisions in-thread._


----------



## rounser (Jul 27, 2008)

> The strength of the RPG is the attitude "Yes, you can...", that computer games so far are unable to achieve.



I challenge that.  

There are computer games that present a sandbox that I'm yet to see a DM come close to - as in, you go across town or halfway around the world, and there are quests, developed NPCs and adventure there.  A DM might let you go there in theory, but it's clear when you've gone beyond their notes and they're improvising.  The game goes a bit grey or wacky, in a lot of cases.

Sure, the computer game might not let you jump out a window to pursue the thief and the DM might, because it's not programmed for it, but that kind of "yes, you can" is trivial when compared to the sandbox "yes, you can", IMO.  Computer games have come a long way, and arguably they're doing D&D better, now, than the majority of P&P tables, in terms of sandboxing.

The social interaction is the difference, and that can't be taken away from P&P.  But to suggest that CRPGs can't do a better sandbox just isn't true, IMO.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 27, 2008)

rounser said:


> There are computer games that present a sandbox that I'm yet to see a DM come close to - as in, you go across town or halfway around the world, and there are quests, developed NPCs and adventure there.  A DM might let you go there in theory, but it's clear when you've gone beyond their notes and they're improvising.  The game goes a bit grey or wacky, in a lot of cases.



This is why pbp is the way to go. 

You have hours or even days to prepare for whatever random direction players want to run in, and there's always time to run to ENWorld and say "help, my players want to create an elephant-riding cavalry to storm the city walls!" and people here happy to help the DM with it.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 27, 2008)

rounser said:


> There are computer games that present a sandbox that I'm yet to see a DM come close to - as in, you go across town or halfway around the world, and there are quests, developed NPCs and adventure there.  A DM might let you go there in theory, but it's clear when you've gone beyond their notes and they're improvising.  The game goes a bit grey or wacky, in a lot of cases.




Just like there are some computer games that allow this, there are those DMs that it is near impossible to tell when they are improvising or when they have left their notes.  But still, even an average DM should realize that if the PCs choose to travel across the east ocean or whatever all he needs to do is have that session be able the journey.

A simple DM tactic for dealing with things that you are not prepared for is to have a few generic things prepared so you can still run the game and let the players explore the new place after you've had a chance to prepare for it.  Even ending the session early and let the players know it is because they choose something they didn't give the DM time enough to prepare for is okay.  DM's have more options open to them then a computer game.


----------



## That One Guy (Jul 27, 2008)

Rel said:


> "Rel's GMing Skillz:  Amazing or Just Plain Awesome?"



If I say Amazing Geniusness do I get something rad?

In regards to Jay, I recognize you. I've been away from these forums lately (for pretty much your reasons) but -hey - I'm back! Cool, huh? (I still like that word.) Point being, I'm glad that it seems like you're still hanging in there and coming back once in a while... which is good. Yeah, I pretty much joined for 4e info since ENW was the best place for info and humane discussion at the time. But, I've been playing 4e and digging it. A lot. 

(Although I could really go for some SR with how much it gets dropped)

Soap, I'm hoping that everyone's chilled out. I noticed a few threads where the bashing was actually quite civil and that made me hopeful.

For my closing opinion (and it is entirely such) I think the merit of table top games are the stories. For me and my friends our table top games have become a form of modern mythology. I think it's pretty important to all of us... and I think that's why people get upset about a game. If they're as invested in the game and stories as we are, I can totally see someone being miffed about... thinking that their game&stories are being invalidated in some fashion.

2 coppers and all that. (Rolls to slide someone of influence a plat under the table)


----------



## rounser (Jul 27, 2008)

> This is why pbp is the way to go.
> 
> You have hours or even days to prepare for whatever random direction players want to run in, and there's always time to run to ENWorld and say "help, my players want to create an elephant-riding cavalry to storm the city walls!" and people here happy to help the DM with it.



No, you don't have hours or days.  You're in the middle of running the game.


> there are those DMs that it is near impossible to tell when they are improvising or when they have left their notes.



That may be because the quality of the game run by them with the notes isn't much cop either.   I take your point, mind you, it's just that in this arena, you must concede that computer games have the DM beat the vast majority of the time, unless he's an incredible improvisor, and they're so rare as to be considered an anomaly.


> A simple DM tactic for dealing with things that you are not prepared for is to have a few generic things prepared so you can still run the game and let the players explore the new place after you've had a chance to prepare for it. Even ending the session early and let the players know it is because they choose something they didn't give the DM time enough to prepare for is okay. DM's have more options open to them then a computer game.



Only that's cheating.  I'll assume you're conceding the point here - I'm not giving you a week to prepare between sessions, nor am I giving you a guarantee that we're still going to Lolrusland on the day.  We might change our minds and head off for the Caverns of Ceilingcat.  A computer will let you do that, and the Caverns of Ceilingcat will be fully detailed - whereas the vast majority of the time a DM would be severely compromised by such a situation.

I know the tactics you're referring to - if they want to go somewhere you're unprepared for, slow them down with combat until end of session, so you can prepare between sessions.  That's the kind of cop-out I'm referring to which a computer doesn't need to do.

You also haven't covered the personal cost to the DM in having to prepare all this material for players on a whim.  There's a _reason_ why railroading is the default for published adventures.  Preparation for this kind of gameplay simply takes too much time unless the PCs broadcast exactly what they're intending well beforehand (which is, as I've said, cheating when compared with a CRPG), and pretending that computer games don't have DMs beat in this area isn't going to help.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Jul 27, 2008)

rounser said:


> I know the tactics you're referring to - if they want to go somewhere you're unprepared for, slow them down with combat until end of session, so you can prepare between sessions.  That's the kind of cop-out I'm referring to which a computer doesn't need to do.




I think this is becoming it's own thread topic isn't it?

However, on the topic at hand, you seem to be saying "computer play provides a seamless experience that lets you go anywhere within the game world because it's already programmed in and that's better". I think that there's a lot that computers don't do, not the least of which is allow you to have detailed conversational interactions and take actions beyond the scope of the programming. At the RPG table, players can come up with ideas not accounted for in the game and the DM can let them happen. 

Put differently, why use the negatively charged word "cop-out" to refer to an incomplete analysis of two different play systems (computer and table-top).


----------



## Crothian (Jul 27, 2008)

rounser said:


> Only that's cheating.  I'll assume you're conceding the point here - I'm not giving you a week to prepare between sessions, nor am I giving you a guarantee that we're still going to Lolrusland on the day.  We might change our minds and head off for the Caverns of Ceilingcat.  A computer will let you do that, and the Caverns of Ceilingcat will be fully detailed - whereas the vast majority of the time a DM would be severely compromised by such a situation.




If you are specifically choosing to do something in the game that the DM is not ready for it is the same as doing something in the computer game that was not programed.  The difference is a person can make it happen, a computer game can not.  Taking a week to do it is not cheating.  Travel takes time, and players should not expect DMs to hand wave it just because.  It is an option the DM has that a computer game does not.  And as a player if you are purposely changing your mind to force the DM to do things he is not ready to do your being an ass.  



> I know the tactics you're referring to - if they want to go somewhere you're unprepared for, slow them down with combat until end of session, so you can prepare between sessions.  That's the kind of cop-out I'm referring to which a computer doesn't need to do.




Can't do.  Not doesn't need to do.  There is no computer game that allows for total freedom that I've seen.  Sure you might be able to go anywhere in the world but what about inside the world?  What about to the moon or other planets?  What about travel in time?  What about different planes of existence or different dimensions?  A DM can take you to all those places.  Computer games are limited by their programing and what the programmer expects people playing the game to do.



> You also haven't covered the personal cost to the DM in having to prepare all this material for players on a whim.




Games have a cost too.  And it takes a lot of time to program a game.  You are just paying someone to do it.  So, if you want the DM; expect a DM to also be able to do as well or better then a computer game I sure hope you are also paying him for his time.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2008)

The point remains, though.

It is not prefering or disliking System X that causes edition wars.  Rather, it is the unwillingness to allow others to express their preference/dislike without challenging it.

There is little doubt in my mind that, for many, the announcement of 4e opened up discussions about game design and game theory that were truly valuable.

But I question whether arguing about what terminology is permissable to use is valuable to anyone (barring, of course, those who belieive that controlling terminology will control the conversation).


RC


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 28, 2008)

rounser said:


> No, you don't have hours or days.  You're in the middle of running the game.



I specified pbp.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 28, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> The point remains, though.
> 
> It is not prefering or disliking System X that causes edition wars.  Rather, it is the unwillingness to allow others to express their preference/dislike without challenging it.
> 
> ...




Nice.

If you know that certain terms will cause people to react negatively, and those terms are vague enough that you will have to define them before you can use them, is that not definitively trolling?  What's the difference?

Hey, I have no problem with people not liking something.  That's groovy.  My problem comes when people try claiming some sort of criticism using terminology that is so vague that it can mean anything.  

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would actually defend this.  You're defending the use of inflammatory language that purposefully discourages conversation.  Never minding, of course, that 99% of these terms have been dropped on 3e at one time or another, all to the same effect - nothing.

People have gone on at length about how 3e destroyed role play because it uses the battle map.  Most people, I think disagree.  Yet, now we have people claiming that using the battle map in 4e destroys role play and we're supposed to nod and agree?  

Stop me if you're heard these: 
Plays like Magic the Gathering
Made for munchkins
Totally videogamey
Completely ignores the themes of traditional fantasy
It's not D&D, it's d20 fantasy
on and on and on

Which edition am I talking about?  Anyone who has posted on these boards for any length of time has to know that waving these flags in a thread is going to provoke strong negative reactions.  

Again, how is that not trolling?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 28, 2008)

How's this for a timely and absolutely textbook example of what I'm talking about:

From This thread



Calico_Jack73 said:


> I was reading through my PHB and DMG last night when I came to the conclusion that 4E is basically Diablo 2 in paper form.  I noticed that most magic items don't grant new abilities but instead improve upon abilities that the PCs already have.  This reminded me of Diablo 2 in that the magic items all increase abilities that you already have in your skill tree.
> 
> Personally I kind of like that since I never liked that a character was more defined by their magic items than their own abilities in the earlier editions.
> 
> Has anybody else come to this conclusion?


----------



## rounser (Jul 28, 2008)

> I specified pbp.



Then you're not talking about what I was referring to, which is a regular D&D game.


> If you are specifically choosing to do something in the game that the DM is not ready for it is the same as doing something in the computer game that was not programed.



I've already covered the difference.  Yes, in a computer game if you can't exit by the window because it's not programmed to let you, then you're stuck.  A DM has the upper hand in this case, because he can improvise.

In the case of detailing an entire world on the fly, though, the computer is the clear winner.  A DM cannot compete, and neither can the PnP modules and game settings on offer - they simply lack the time and the page count to come anywhere near what a CRPG setting can offer in terms of sandbox freedom.

Remember, CRPGs invented the Overworld, and are busy refining it, whereas PnP is still busy "going back to the dungeon" because that's all too complicated for mere human DMs.


----------



## rounser (Jul 28, 2008)

> I specified pbp.



Then you're not talking about what I was referring to, which is a regular D&D game.


> If you are specifically choosing to do something in the game that the DM is not ready for it is the same as doing something in the computer game that was not programed.



I've already covered the difference.  Yes, in a computer game if you can't exit by the window because it's not programmed to let you, then you're stuck.  A DM has the upper hand in this case, because he can improvise.

In the case of detailing an entire world on the fly, though, the computer is the clear winner.  A DM cannot compete, and neither can the PnP modules and game settings on offer - they simply lack the time, memory and the page count to come anywhere near what a CRPG setting can offer in terms of sandbox freedom.

Remember, CRPGs invented the Overworld, and are busy refining it, whereas PnP is still busy "going back to the dungeon" because that's all too complicated for mere human DMs.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 28, 2008)

rounser said:


> In the case of detailing an entire world on the fly, though, the computer is the clear winner.




That's not true though.  A computer game cannot do it on the fly.  It takes months or years of programming and graphic works to get the computer game up and running.  

If you really want to continue this discussion though, you should fork it to its own thread.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 28, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Nice.
> 
> If you know that certain terms will cause people to react negatively, and those terms are vague enough that you will have to define them before you can use them, is that not definitively trolling?  What's the difference?




(1)  We do not all agree on the meaning of the term "D&D".

(2)  Some people react negatively to calling 4e, or 3e, "D&D".

(4)  Therefore, we should not call 3e or 4e "D&D".

Sorry, but I don't think so.  Calls to prevent "the use of inflammatory language" are, IMHO and IME, far more likely to be attempts to "purposefully discourage conversation" than use of those terms.

And, again, in one long thread we already demonstrated rather conclusively that, despite complaints about the "papercuppy-ness" of such language, we all have some relative idea of what is meant, and no other terms convey the same meaning.

When you are attempting to stiffle a word or phrase to which no other terms convey the same meaning, it is the meaning you are attempting to stiffle, pure and simple.



> People have gone on at length about how 3e destroyed role play because it uses the battle map.  Most people, I think disagree.  Yet, now we have people claiming that using the battle map in 4e destroys role play and we're supposed to nod and agree?




Obviously not.

But there is a big difference between discussing whether or not focusing on minis damages role-playing, and attempting to prevent the topic from being discussed.  And, frankly, as I said earlier, if you are not interested in discussing those topics, it is very, very easy to simply not do so.  Hence, there are very, very few discussions of 4e rules that I participate in, and you don't see me dancing across 4e lovefests claiming that any points made are inflammatory.  

Not liking something about a D&D edition, and saying so, isn't trolling.  Attempting to break up any conversation that doesn't agree with your own personal outlook is.

IMHO, of course.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 28, 2008)

Hussar said:


> How's this for a timely and absolutely textbook example of what I'm talking about:
> 
> From This thread




And, again, so what?

How is this different from reading the books and discovering you love 4e, and wanting to discuss that love with other likeminded folks?  Why do you care that he doesn't like 4e, or that it reminds him of Diablo?

RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 28, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> (1)  We do not all agree on the meaning of the term "D&D".
> 
> (2)  Some people react negatively to calling 4e, or 3e, "D&D".
> 
> (4)  Therefore, we should not call 3e or 4e "D&D".



Isn't it the other way around - some people think that either 3E or 4E are not "true D&D"? And since the game is still called D&D on the cover, it _is_ D&D, so they are actually trying to say something else when they say "3E is not real D&D" or "4E is not real D&D". 

It is a bit as if i'd say: "Raven Crowkring is not a real EN Worlder". What is this supposed to mean? What if I add the sentence "I will not post in his threads. If I am going to EN World, I want to talk with EN Worlders." 

Why couldn't I just say: "I do not enjoy posting in threads with Raven Crowkring. I don't like his attitude/the topics he talks about/his avatar. He never wrote anything I agree with or provided valuable insights.
I prefer posting in threads with Eric Noah. He comes off as a nice guy in his posts, he has a lot of valuable RPG experience, and we can thank him for having this site in the first place". 


(Names just chosen for illustration and not containing any actual judgements on my side - in fact, I like discussing with Raven. Of course, the part about Eric Noah is true.  
For risks and side effects ask your doctor or apothecary. Illustrations not to scale. Batteries not included)


----------



## Vurt (Jul 28, 2008)

Darn it, where are the frelling batteries!?! /me squints to read Mostrum_Ridcully's fine print.

I too am taking a bit of a break.  The last few weeks, it's been difficult to get to EN World without first sitting through multiple timeouts and the like, my last few months messing around with this new incarnation of 4e by playing Keep on the Shadowfell have been absolutely heartbreaking for me, and the board's renewed moratorium on "edition wars" has left me nowhere to try to talk things out without fear of a flame-fest descending from multiple directions as the various factions try to vigorously defend their positions and/or try to get one another banned for "trying to squeek past the moratorium".  This last bit may or may not actually be the case, but it certainly looks like it from time to time.

Which is to say, in trying to keep people from leaving in frustration at wading through vitriol, it's been keeping me away in frustration for not having a familiar forum to express my views.  I've quite enjoyed EN World in the past, but the recent changes in the last few months (the move, the new front page, the seeming shift to 4e as a primary focus) have not been for the better, IMHO.

As an aside, I can't say I agree with Hussar's position that you just can't say certain things because someone might find them inflammatory.  IIRC, the only censorship rule in effect is the one pertaining to Eric's grandma, and I've never heard it said that she objects to "pokemount" or "munchkins" or the like, only to swearing and rude references.   If that is not the case, please let me know.  Otherwise, folks should learn to chill out and relax a bit while reading things on the internet.  

Communication and understanding is not bettered by censorship.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 28, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> (1)  We do not all agree on the meaning of the term "D&D".
> 
> (2)  Some people react negatively to calling 4e, or 3e, "D&D".
> 
> (4)  Therefore, we should not call 3e or 4e "D&D".



This is a really poor example. "4E is not D&D" is just the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. There is an *objective* definition of D&D - a game published under the name D&D is, in fact, D&D. Some people then get into "well, it's not *really *D&D", which is the fallacy. But there are games that can be objectively be called D&D, because that's what they're named.

For a valid example, you need to find a term that has no objective definition.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 28, 2008)

Hussar said:


> How's this for a timely and absolutely textbook example of what I'm talking about:
> 
> From This thread



I'm not sure that's a good example, because the poster doesn't actually say "4E is videogamey". The post essentially says "this specific aspect of 4E reminds me of a specific video game", which is a perfectly valid comment. It's not even offered in a negative light.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 28, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> This is a really poor example. "4E is not D&D" is just the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. There is an *objective* definition of D&D - a game published under the name D&D is, in fact, D&D. Some people then get into "well, it's not *really *D&D", which is the fallacy. But there are games that can be objectively be called D&D, because that's what they're named.
> 
> For a valid example, you need to find a term that has no objective definition.




This is actually the point.  While "[a] game published under the name D&D" may be an objective definition (insofar as one is possible), it is _*not*_ in fact, the objective _*meaning*_ of the term D&D, which is a product of subjective valuation.

Even this "objective" definition is extremely questionable.  If I published a game under the name "D&D" (regardless of what legal action WotC would then take), would it be D&D?  Is D&D Monopoly D&D?  If I bought the rights to the name and published Candyland under the moniker "D&D", would it make it D&D?  Would it make previous publications of Candyland also D&D, if they were exactly the same rules/board/etc.?


RC


----------



## Branduil (Jul 28, 2008)

This thread is a real scrob-woobler.


----------



## Kheti sa-Menik (Jul 28, 2008)

Rel said:


> <snip>  Also be assured that, while we're going through a rough patch, this is not the new status quo.  There are some discussions going on behind the scenes as to what can be done to make ENW the friendly, civil, informative place that we all know it can be.
> <snip>




Rel, please tell me these discussions don't include yet another round of draconian censorship rules.

I agree this place has changed, and I think it is owing to the heavyhanded  and unnecessary moderation.  What happened to free flowing discussion?  

I know this is an unpopular view but someone has to voice it.  I'm not sniping at anyone, but myself and a few others are growing uncomfortable with the stifling of ideas and discussion.


----------



## racoffin (Jul 28, 2008)

Kheti sa-Menik said:


> Rel, please tell me these discussions don't include yet another round of draconian censorship rules.
> 
> I agree this place has changed, and I think it is owing to the heavyhanded  and unnecessary moderation.  What happened to free flowing discussion?
> 
> I know this is an unpopular view but someone has to voice it.  I'm not sniping at anyone, but myself and a few others are growing uncomfortable with the stifling of ideas and discussion.




I may be looking in the wrong threads, but I have not seen anything draconian or heavy-handed in the moderation around here. In fact, I'd suggest that the mods are being pretty level-headed; I know there have been strings of comments that are little more than namecalling and backbiting that has gone for pages before a mod finally has to step in and remind people to settle down.

I do not think any sort of free-flowing discussion is stifled by requesting that people try and limit their attacks, moderate their own tone, and in general act like they are talking to other human beings that simply don't agree rather than their worst enemy in the world.

If there is a concern about the moderators having to step in, perhaps all parties should step back and take an honest look at what they are putting up on the boards, their own words and others, and consider if there was a better, perhaps more civil, way of stating their opinions.

A final note: one poster remarked in a thread recently to the effect that they aren't looking to make friends and are just stating their opinion in the most honest or bluntest manner. That *sounds* really nifty, but in reality it comes across as you are trying to explain why you are being offensive. While others are not saying the same thing, they are sure acting like it. That might be one of the reasons that many people are taking a step away from ENWorld: it is starting to have the same sort of ill-tempered posts as WOTC's boards.

Food for thought.


----------



## Maggan (Jul 28, 2008)

racoffin said:


> I do not think any sort of free-flowing discussion is stifled




I agree, and also believe that the moderation that created a posting climate that has attracted over 70 000 registered users, is very good, by any standards.

/M


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 28, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> This is actually the point.  While "[a] game published under the name D&D" may be an objective definition (insofar as one is possible), it is _*not*_ in fact, the objective _*meaning*_ of the term D&D, which is a product of subjective valuation.



How do you derive an objective meaning from subjective valuations? Wouldn't that be the subjective meaning? My point is that when a term has an objective meaning (which in this case it does, despite your protestations), you cannot compare its use to terms that are completely subjective (videogamey being the chief culprit here).



Raven Crowking said:


> Even this "objective" definition is extremely questionable.  If I published a game under the name "D&D" (regardless of what legal action WotC would then take), would it be D&D?



You're taking my comment to an absurd level of literality. Of course it wouldn't be D&D. If I take a Zenith DVD player and write Sony on the top, does that make it a Sony DVD player? Of course it doesn't. That's ridiculous. Reductio ad absurdum, I believe.


----------



## rounser (Jul 28, 2008)

> A computer game cannot do it on the fly. It takes months or years of programming and graphic works to get the computer game up and running.



Duh.  I'm taking that into account.  Once the work is done, it may as well be on the fly.  The degree of randomly generated versus status quo material differs from software to software.

A DM cannot equal the effort of a programming design team (or if he can, he's an incredibly rare bird), nor can he recall all that information and process it in the way a computer can.  It's just the way it is.

Even given a large page count, a PnP adventure comes nowhere near the scope of your average CRPG, and probably railroads you all the way.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 28, 2008)

Kheti sa-Menik said:


> What happened to free flowing discussion?



It's on usenet. I wouldn't recommend going there. The only decent thread I saw was on alt.shut.the.hell.up.geek which was literally two geeks telling one another to shut the hell up. Hilarious. Until a third geek arrived asking why they were telling one another to shut the hell up. That really spoiled it for me.


----------



## Harlekin (Jul 28, 2008)

*rpg.net is friendlier than enword these days*

I have to belatedly agree with the OP as well. These days, if I want to read a friendly, constructive and inspiring discussion about D&D, I go to rpg.net. 

This is the place to go to watch fans tear at each other about which way one should go about pretending to be an elf. 

As a short time solution, the only way to recreate some level of civility is more moderator activity. In my mind, way to many posters do not consider how their post will be read, but just post out of some initial passion. 

Maybe the best long-time solution for the problems here would be than EN World repositions itself either as the Dragonsfoot of 3rd ed. or as a 4th ed website.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 28, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> How do you derive an objective meaning from subjective valuations?




My point exactly.  Despite your protestations, no term has an objective meaning.  It is part of the very nature of language that every term has only subjective meaning, based upon subjective valuations.

While you think I am taking your comment "to an absurd level of literality" you must surely be aware that there are some folks who believe that what WotC has done with the D&D name (either in 3rd, or in 4th edition, or both) corresponds exactly to the same absurdity that makes you say "Of course it wouldn't be D&D."

If I take a Zenith DVD player and write Sony on the top, does that make it a Sony DVD player? Of course it doesn't.  Likewise, if I take any game system and write D&D on the top, it obviously doesn't make it D&D.  Even if I am WotC.

While I personally accept that 3e and 4e are D&D, I fully understand why some others do not.  They believe it is a Zenith DVD player with Sony written on the top.

Which illustrates the problem when one begins to censor on the basis of "vagueness".  Any term is "vague", and the degree of "vagueness" is more often than not based not on inability to understand what is meant, but unwillingness to do so.  This is not censorship to make communication clearer, but censorship to repress specific ideas that the would-be censor doesn't like.

IMHO, of course.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 28, 2008)

rounser said:


> Even given a large page count, a PnP adventure comes nowhere near the scope of your average CRPG, and probably railroads you all the way.





Your PnP experiences must differ very much from my own.


RC


----------



## Crothian (Jul 28, 2008)

rounser said:


> A DM cannot equal the effort of a programming design team (or if he can, he's an incredibly rare bird), nor can he recall all that information and process it in the way a computer can.  It's just the way it is.




If a DM is getting paid like a programmer and this is his job so he has 60 hours a week to spend on it he can.  Now you are comparing one's trained profession to another person's hobby; hardly a fair comparison.  You are allowing for a team of designers who do it for a living a lot more freedom then the single poor DM.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 29, 2008)

Hussar said:


> How's this for a timely and absolutely textbook example of what I'm talking about:
> 
> From This thread




You know, this very handily proves exactly what I and several others have been saying.  You linked a post that gives a detailed example of why he dislikes the new system and why he says it's videogamey, but you linked it to show "They shouldn't be allowed to say that."

Is it any wonder that so many people who dislike 4e are growing more and more embittered to find that _any_ argument against 4e or _any_ claim that they may have found something wrong ends with them being attacked and called out to be censored?


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 29, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Just as 90% of those who called 3e art "anime-y" meant "it has qualities similar to those of anime", 90% of those who call 4e (or 3e, for that matter) "videogame-y" mean "it has qualities similar to that of a videogame".  And the responses by those attempting to refute that assertation make it very, very clear that these are not "vague, nearly meaningless terms".  The proper follow-up question is "What qualities does X have that are similar to Y?"  LostSoul asked it, got an answer, and we were able to have a conversation with very little difficulty.




To be fair, RC, it would have been a lot easier if, instead of saying "4e feels videogame-y", you would have said, "4e adds a barrier to immersion".

(I think that I'm getting the "videogame-y" complaint right: even though the fictional character's choices are not limited beyond what's reasonable, a player's choices are limited in the "metagame", and these limitations cause the player to feel less like he's immersing in a fictional world and more like playing a video game.)


----------



## Scribble (Jul 29, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You linked a post that gives a detailed example of why he dislikes the new system and why he says it's videogamey...




Huh?



			
				Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> *Personally I kind of like that *since I never liked that a character was more defined by their magic items than their own abilities in the earlier editions.




I know "kind of" isn't as strong as fully commiting to liking something, but how in the world did you get dislikes from that statement? 

Also did he ever qualify why he posted that link? Perhaps he was posting the type of argument that DOES add to a discussion. (One that shows WHAT he finds reminicent of a videogame) as opposed to one that simply says "It's vieogamey" and leaves it at that?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 29, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> If I take a Zenith DVD player and write Sony on the top, does that make it a Sony DVD player? Of course it doesn't.  Likewise, if I take any game system and write D&D on the top, it obviously doesn't make it D&D.  Even if I am WotC.



But if said DVD player was made by Sony, or some company that owns the Sony trademark, then it would be, by definition, a Sony DVD player.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 29, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You know, this very handily proves exactly what I and several others have been saying.  You linked a post that gives a detailed example of why he dislikes the new system and why he says it's videogamey, but you linked it to show "They shouldn't be allowed to say that."



It was a poor choice to link that post, because it's not a good example at all. The poster does not actually explain why he says 4E is videogamey, because *he doesn't say it's videogamey*. He avoids the vague, undefined, often-inflammatory term by explaining exactly what he's talking about. He compares a specific part of 4E with a specific part of a specific video game. That's not at all the same thing as saying "4E sucks, it's too videogamey."

Now, he does make the leap in logic that since 4E is similar to Diablo 2 in one respect, 4E is simply Diablo 2 in paper form. That doesn't follow, but the post does not fall into the vague, undefined term problem.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 29, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Also did he ever qualify why he posted that link? Perhaps he was posting the type of argument that DOES add to a discussion. (One that shows WHAT he finds reminicent of a videogame) as opposed to one that simply says "It's vieogamey" and leaves it at that?



Good point. Hadn't thought of that.

We're jumping to conclusion as to Hussar's point in linking. Hopefully we'll get clarification.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 29, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> It was a poor choice to link that post, because it's not a good example at all. The poster does not actually explain why he says 4E is videogamey, because *he doesn't say it's videogamey*. He avoids the vague, undefined, often-inflammatory term by explaining exactly what he's talking about. He compares a specific part of 4E with a specific part of a specific video game. That's not at all the same thing as saying "4E sucks, it's too videogamey."
> 
> Now, he does make the leap in logic that since 4E is similar to Diablo 2 in one respect, 4E is simply Diablo 2 in paper form. That doesn't follow, but the post does not fall into the vague, undefined term problem.






ProfessorCirno said:


> You know, this very handily proves exactly what I and several others have been saying.  You linked a post that gives a detailed example of why he dislikes the new system and why he says it's videogamey, but you linked it to show "They shouldn't be allowed to say that."
> 
> Is it any wonder that so many people who dislike 4e are growing more and more embittered to find that _any_ argument against 4e or _any_ claim that they may have found something wrong ends with them being attacked and called out to be censored?




Couple of points.  Ok, maybe the example wasn't textbook perfect.  But, it has all the talking points.  Someone found a point of comparison between video games and D&D (take your pick of edition) and then tries to make the astounding leap that D&D=Video Game du jour.  

That's the point I was talking about.  Whether he likes or dislikes the point is irrelevant to what I'm talking about.  It's that leap at the end.



Raven Crowking said:


> My point exactly.  Despite your protestations, no term has an objective meaning.  It is part of the very nature of language that every term has only subjective meaning, based upon subjective valuations.
> 
> While you think I am taking your comment "to an absurd level of literality" you must surely be aware that there are some folks who believe that what WotC has done with the D&D name (either in 3rd, or in 4th edition, or both) corresponds exactly to the same absurdity that makes you say "Of course it wouldn't be D&D."
> 
> ...




Ok, now I'm being accused of censorship.  Wow.

Are people really that attached to using vague language that any attempt to make your point clearly becomes censorship?

And, no one answered my question.  If you use language that you know is inflamatory - be it stating that Edition X isn't D&D or whatever - REGARDLESS OF YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS ON THE ISSUE, trolling?  Isn't that trolling by definition?  

I have zero problems with people not liking something.  Heck, I understand that.  My problem is when people couch their criticisms in buzz words that have a million different definitions.  "It's not D&D" is a good one.  What the heck does that really mean?  "It's videogamey" is another good one.  Does that mean that the game runs extremely smoothly and well and rarely has any play problems?  Somehow I don't think so, yet, that would be a good definition of video-gamey.

How is "Say what you mean" censorship?  Isn't that the opposite of censorship?  That's all I'm asking here.  Say what you want to say, but don't use hot button terminology that's been beaten to death for the last eight years.  All you do is Godwin the thread.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 29, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Someone found a point of comparison between video games and D&D (take your pick of edition) and then tries to make the astounding leap that D&D=Video Game du jour.



Fair enough. But I believe the discussion was about using vague language, rather than unsubstantiated leaps of logic. Both are bad, but we were discussing the first. Thus the confusion.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Jul 29, 2008)

Should I be sad or glad at the huge level of irony inherent in a raging argument like the one that this thread has become due to someone declaring an honest opinion?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 29, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Couple of points.  Ok, maybe the example wasn't textbook perfect.  But, it has all the talking points.  Someone found a point of comparison between video games and D&D (take your pick of edition) and then tries to make the astounding leap that D&D=Video Game du jour.
> 
> That's the point I was talking about.  Whether he likes or dislikes the point is irrelevant to what I'm talking about.  It's that leap at the end.




This isn't something inherint to just one argument.  I see fantastic leaps of conclusions on these forums all the time, to the point where you'd think everyone was under some permanent +20 to jump buff.

That was lame of me



> Ok, now I'm being accused of censorship.  Wow.
> 
> Are people really that attached to using vague language that any attempt to make your point clearly becomes censorship?




The problem is, it's not vague language to everyone.  You're saying "I think it's vague language.  Ergo, it should be banned."  Yes, that is censorship - you want specific things banned for no other reason then _you don't like it_.



> And, no one answered my question.  If you use language that you know is inflamatory - be it stating that Edition X isn't D&D or whatever - REGARDLESS OF YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS ON THE ISSUE, trolling?  Isn't that trolling by definition?




The problem is that it is inflammatory for stupid reasons.  Saying you dislike 4e is inflammatory.  Saying you dislike 3e can be inflammatory.  Just because you know someone will (perhaps violently) disagree with you doesn't mean you stop talking.  If anything, that makes it all the more important to say it.



> I have zero problems with people not liking something.  Heck, I understand that.  My problem is when people couch their criticisms in buzz words that have a million different definitions.  "It's not D&D" is a good one.  What the heck does that really mean?  "It's videogamey" is another good one.  Does that mean that the game runs extremely smoothly and well and rarely has any play problems?  Somehow I don't think so, yet, that would be a good definition of video-gamey.




And yet, you don't seem to grasp that they aren't freaking buzz words that people only use to put the game down.  If it's a buzz word, it's because _countless numbers of people have all felt the same freaking way and the explanation grew popular_.  Again, what you are asking for IS censorship - you don't like something, and you want it banned.



> How is "Say what you mean" censorship?  Isn't that the opposite of censorship?  That's all I'm asking here.  Say what you want to say, but don't use hot button terminology that's been beaten to death for the last eight years.  All you do is Godwin the thread.




They are trying to say what they mean.  They think 4e feels like a video game to them.  And if you ask why, get this - it's a perfectly understandable response to say "I dunno, it just does."  God knows nobody demands these kinds of explanations when someone says something POSITIVE of 4e.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 29, 2008)

Varianor Abroad said:


> Should I be sad or glad at the huge level of irony inherent in a raging argument like the one that this thread has become due to someone declaring an honest opinion?




I'd say it's a perfect show of why he's leaving.


----------



## Cold Beer (Jul 29, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> What he said.




Yeah, what he said.  Don't sweat it, there's bigger and better things to worry about...


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 29, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> They are trying to say what they mean.  They think 4e feels like a video game to them.  And if you ask why, get this - it's a perfectly understandable response to say "I dunno, it just does."




It is understandable.  It's not good for conversation.  

Someone calls their experience "videogame-y".  Does this mean that they didn't get as immersive an experience as they were looking for, or that they felt that 4e is not a roleplaying game?  Both are logical conclusions of the "videogame-y" label.



ProfessorCirno said:


> God knows nobody demands these kinds of explanations when someone says something POSITIVE of 4e.




People should ask.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 29, 2008)

> They are trying to say what they mean. They think 4e feels like a video game to them. And if you ask why, get this - it's a perfectly understandable response to say "I dunno, it just does." God knows nobody demands these kinds of explanations when someone says something POSITIVE of 4e.




Because, when someone says something positive about 4e, they generally do so in concrete terms that leave little room for misinterpretation.  

"I like the simplisity of monsters in 4e" is a pretty common one for example.  You cannot misinterpret that.  You can certainly disagree and people do.  People want to use the 3e model where monsters and PC's follow the same rules.  And that's perfectly fine and we can discuss the merits of both systems.  But, you cannot really misunderstand what the person is saying.  

"I think 4e is videogamey" is so broad and vague that its mostly meaningless and only serves to provoke.  In the thread I quoted, the thread title is 4e=Diablo 2.  He's basing his idea that a single point of comparison makes 4e a pnp verson of Diablo 2.  I'd call that overly broad and vague.  You don't and that's fine.  I see it as symtomatic of the same sort of thing that has been going on for years.

See, I do have a problem when someone says, "I dunno, it just does."  Because, how can you respond to that?  How can you have any sort of discourse when the person you're trying to talk to doesn't even know what they mean?  

I think 4e is weeblesclup.  What's weeblesclup?  I dunno, it just is.  

How is that communication.  You bring up the buggaboo of censorship and banning.  I'm certainly not saying that the moderators should be involved in this, so, please stop putting words in my mouth.  I'm saying that all posters should take a moment, before posting and try to formulate their thoughts into language which is as unambiguous as possible.  You will never have perfect meaning.  That's impossible.  But, there are definitely degrees of ambiguity.

Using any of the "...y" terms is ambiguous.  And then everybody scrambles around trying to figure out what exactly that means.  I'll give the guy I linked to credit.  At least he did take the time to point out exactly what he meant.  And then took this giant leap afterwards.  But, my point is, why do it in the first place?  

This is hardly new to 4e either.  This is a drum I've been banging LONG before 4e was released.  RavenCrowking can certainly attest to that.  Say what you mean.  If the only way you can say something is to hot button, then maybe it's time to reevaluate what you're trying to say.

Unless of course, your entire point is passive agressive trolling.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 29, 2008)

An additional thought.

Can you think of a single catchphrase, like videogamey that has a positive context?  I can't.  The only reason to use these terms is to express negative feelings without having to justify your arguement.  These terms are not neutral.  Not at all.  Every one of them is negative.  But, they are also broad enough that they can mean just about anything to anyone.

That's the reason you never hear anyone being questioned about the positive reviews of 4e, or 3e either.  The catchphrases are never used in that context.  You never say, Oh, 3e is videogamey and expect everyone to think that's a positive thing.  

Can you think of a single positive catchphrase?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 29, 2008)

Hussar said:


> An additional thought.
> 
> Can you think of a single catchphrase, like videogamey that has a positive context?  I can't.  The only reason to use these terms is to express negative feelings without having to justify your arguement.  These terms are not neutral.  Not at all.  Every one of them is negative.  But, they are also broad enough that they can mean just about anything to anyone.
> 
> ...



No. And that is sad, because there are a lot of good and innovative video games and using video games only as a kind of "insult" or negative is unfair to them.

But, Hussar, didn't you want to focus more on the "real role-playing-related stuff" instead of the meta-discussions and hot-button-discussions, to save your own sanity and enjoyment of the game and this board?


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jul 29, 2008)

Branduil said:


> This thread is a real scrob-woobler.





			
				Google said:
			
		

> Your search - scrob-woobler - did not match any documents.


----------



## rounser (Jul 29, 2008)

> hardly a fair comparison.



It's not whether it's fair or not, it's facing the reality of things as they are.  

Even when you have the equivalent of someone spending a full time job on PnP material (i.e. published megamodules) they still don't come anywhere near the scope of what people have come to expect from a CRPG, and are likely to be railroads to boot.  They're restricted by a much smaller market, and a page count. 

That's the reality of things, and that's the point I'm making.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 29, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> To be fair, RC, it would have been a lot easier if, instead of saying "4e feels videogame-y", you would have said, "4e adds a barrier to immersion".





I very much doubt it.

RC


----------



## Vurt (Jul 29, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I have zero problems with people not liking something.  Heck, I understand that.  My problem is when people couch their criticisms in buzz words that have a million different definitions.  "It's not D&D" is a good one.  What the heck does that really mean?  "It's videogamey" is another good one.  Does that mean that the game runs extremely smoothly and well and rarely has any play problems?  Somehow I don't think so, yet, that would be a good definition of video-gamey.




The common word "quality" is one with a definition that is very hard to pin down--what does it mean, exactly, if I say I have quality furniture in my home, that it's expensive? well-made? old? ergonomic? not in need of replacement?--but that doesn't stop people from using the word and, more importantly, from other people getting a good enough idea as to the word's meaning that the conversation can continue.  

To you, the exact nature of "videogame-y" is vague or broad, but maybe it's vagueness is why the word seems to have caught on, and why people will chime in and say, "Yup, I get that sense too," without having a perfect idea of what is being described.

And while I'd like to describe to you specifically why I might feel that way about certain games, I would hate to start an "edition war" over the topic or get this thread locked.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 29, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> But if said DVD player was made by Sony, or some company that owns the Sony trademark, then it would be, by definition, a Sony DVD player.




That very much depends upon what is meant by "by definition".  After all, if you refused to accept Candyland as D&D just because I owned both and slapped the D&D moniker on Candyland, it follows that your "definition" is, itself, subjective.

(Which is, btw, part of the nature of language.  Any "precision" in language, upon investigation, is largely illusion.)


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 29, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> It was a poor choice to link that post, because it's not a good example at all. The poster does not actually explain why he says 4E is videogamey, because *he doesn't say it's videogamey*.




It's a good example of how reactionary the censorship urge is, though.  The post is selected without actually reading it and/or understanding it as a good example of a bad post, regardless of actual contents or meaning.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 29, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Ok, now I'm being accused of censorship.  Wow.




Not at all.  Moderators have the ability to censor.  You, thankfully, do not.

Attempting to control the words/phrases/expressions used by others, on the basis that the language is "vague" or otherwise, is attempted censorship.  Or would you rather use some other, less clear, less well defined term for what you are attempting?

If I say "videogame-y", what I mean is "videogame-y".  I have said what I meant.  That you claim "vagueness" is besides the point.  As I said previously, if you understand what is said well enough to be offended by it, your cries of "vagueness" sound rather more like "shut up!" than like "could you clarify that, please?"

"Could you clarify that, please?" is always valid.  

"Don't use that phrase!" is not.



> And, no one answered my question.  If you use language that you know is inflamatory - be it stating that Edition X isn't D&D or whatever - REGARDLESS OF YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS ON THE ISSUE, trolling?  Isn't that trolling by definition?




As you know calling 4e "D&D" is inflammatory to some folks, would you agree that doing so is trolling?  I wouldn't.  And I have already answered your question on this basis.

You cannot both say "Say what you want to say" and "but don't use terms I don't like" in the same breath and expect anyone to not see it for what it is.


RC


----------



## Rel (Jul 29, 2008)

A couple things here:

First, I think the continued discussion of the "tone of the board" is a fine topic for this thread.  I think that comparisson between the flexibility and immersion of CRPG's vs. PnPRPG's is one that deserves its own thread and is rather off topic for this one.

In answer to the specific point raised about moderatorial heavy-handedness as it applies to the current situation, I can't promise anything specific.  I help enforce the rules around here and I put in my two cents on how to make the place better.  But I don't set the policy.

I will say that I don't really want to see any increase in general of the amount of moderation around here.  I would like to see a shift in responsibility to the users to just ignore (or Ignore) people who they don't think are adding to the conversation.  I think the place would be more pleasant and productive if folks did more of that.

The fact is that, on any given topic, there are probably going to be people you disagree with.  There's nothing wrong with that, especially if everybody can try to be calm about it and discuss their differences in an enlightening and conversational way.  If you encounter somebody who is being a jackass about it then simply ignore them and continue conversing with the people who you have an easier time communicating with.  If they bother you enough then just put them on Ignore and forget about them.

At this point, one of two things seems likely.  Either the jackass will realize that nobody wants to talk to them while they are being a jackass and will try to dial down the jackassery.  Alternatively, they might decide that, if nobody will pay them any attention then they need to get louder and nastier.  That'll probably get them banned.  The wheels will turn and the boards will move forward.

Finally I'll say that if you'd like a less (which is to say almost "un") moderated forum about gaming then feel free to check out Circvs Maximvs if you haven't already.  The language is less grandma friendly but actually the conversation is pretty good.  Maybe because the jackasses have been shouted down or else because everybody treats them as just good for a laugh.  Anyhow, it's a much smaller forum than ENW but I sometimes think that that's a good thing for conversation.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 29, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> That very much depends upon what is meant by "by definition". After all, if you refused to accept Candyland as D&D just because I owned both and slapped the D&D moniker on Candyland, it follows that your "definition" is, itself, subjective.
> 
> (Which is, btw, part of the nature of language. Any "precision" in language, upon investigation, is largely illusion.)



You're still stuck on poor examples, because you're redefining existing terms. I could call a DVD player a television (hey they're both electronics, like D&D and Candyland are both games), and defend it by saying "this is what *I* mean by television", but that doesn't change what everyone else means by television. And it doesn't change the fact that if I use the word television that way in conversation, no one will understand what I mean.

You need a better example to be at all convincing. No, your Candyland/D&D would not be D&D, because D&D already is something. If you took Candyland and attached an entirely new name to it, then that name would be what you're suggesting.


----------



## Branduil (Jul 29, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:


>




Stop trying to censor me!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 29, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> You're still stuck on poor examples, because you're redefining existing terms.





I realize that not everyone is interested in the philospohical implications of language, so I will be brief and then drop this (although I'll be happy to discuss it in a forked thread).

(1)  Redefinition of existing terms is part of the ongoing process of language development.  In Shakespeare's time, "prevent" meant "to go ahead of", for example.  Within our own lifetimes, "owned" has grown a very different definition from "possessed".

(2)  Definitions of terms themselves are not, and cannot be, objective.  There are places where a Dr. Pepper, for example, is called a Coke.  One can question exactly where the sun ends...is solar radiation part of the sun?  Depends upon how you define the term.  There are philosophical questions that examine this far more deeply, but suffice it to say that "objective definition" is an illusion, even within a given cultural group.



> I could call a DVD player a television (hey they're both electronics, like D&D and Candyland are both games), and defend it by saying "this is what *I* mean by television", but that doesn't change what everyone else means by television. And it doesn't change the fact that if I use the word television that way in conversation, no one will understand what I mean.




I used to own a DVD player that was a television.  



> You need a better example to be at all convincing. No, your Candyland/D&D would not be D&D, because D&D already is something.




Likewise, some folks would say that 3e or 4e is not D&D, because D&D already is something.  When WotC calls 3e or 4e "D&D", they are redefining the term, and some folks think that redefinition is objectionable.  I am not one of them, but I have no difficulty understanding their position.

RC


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 29, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Can you think of a single catchphrase, like videogamey that has a positive context?  I can't.  The only reason to use these terms is to express negative feelings without having to justify your arguement.  These terms are not neutral.  Not at all.  Every one of them is negative.  But, they are also broad enough that they can mean just about anything to anyone.
> 
> That's the reason you never hear anyone being questioned about the positive reviews of 4e, or 3e either.  The catchphrases are never used in that context.  You never say, Oh, 3e is videogamey and expect everyone to think that's a positive thing.
> 
> Can you think of a single positive catchphrase?



Yeah, I can. "Elegant". WTF does that mean when applied to RPG rules?

(Of course, I think someone saying "simplicity of monsters" and stopping at that is also inappropriately vague. I certainly don't know what that means. What's simple? Why does _that person _ - not necessarily anyone else - think there's simplicity there?)


----------



## Steely Dan (Jul 29, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> "Elegant". WTF does that mean when applied to RPG rules?




Non-cumbersome/clunky.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 29, 2008)

Hmmm... no wonder I can't (and don't) follow such discussions.

I guess I can't see the difference where some internet denizens think something is vague but not other things (many being described in this thread) I guess there's inconsistency in order here, depending on one's agenda.


----------



## Branduil (Jul 29, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I realize that not everyone is interested in the philospohical implications of language, so I will be brief and then drop this (although I'll be happy to discuss it in a forked thread).
> 
> (1)  Redefinition of existing terms is part of the ongoing process of language development.  In Shakespeare's time, "prevent" meant "to go ahead of", for example.  Within our own lifetimes, "owned" has grown a very different definition from "possessed".
> 
> ...




Yogurt parsimmons googleplex eclair in the wumbotron, my tremulous omelette.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 29, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> (1)  Redefinition of existing terms is part of the ongoing process of language development.  In Shakespeare's time, "prevent" meant "to go ahead of", for example.  Within our own lifetimes, "owned" has grown a very different definition from "possessed".[/quo
> 
> (2)  Definitions of terms themselves are not, and cannot be, objective.  There are places where a Dr. Pepper, for example, is called a Coke.  One can question exactly where the sun ends...is solar radiation part of the sun?  Depends upon how you define the term.  There are philosophical questions that examine this far more deeply, but suffice it to say that "objective definition" is an illusion, even within a given cultural group.




You're talking about slang it seems.

Yes, some places call a Dr Pepper a "coke" but that still doesn't invalidate the definition of Coca Cola being a beverage manufactured and sold by the Coca Cola company. 

Also for "owned" and "possessed" do you mean teh internet "I owned joo?" (not suere in what context you mean this?)




> I used to own a DVD player that was a television.




In what way? was it a television with a DVD player built in? In that case it is a combo Television DVD player.  (Also it probably has a more objective model number.)

You're just subjectivey using objective terms.

D&D 1e DMG is an objective term. I can say go to the store and get me D&D 1e, and that would be all the info needed.

D&D 1e DMGish is subjectively using the objective term of D&D 1e DMG.  I can't say go to the store and get me something D&D 1e DMGish without also giving more description of what I mean.



> Likewise, some folks would say that 3e or 4e is not D&D, because D&D already is something.  When WotC calls 3e or 4e "D&D", they are redefining the term, and some folks think that redefinition is objectionable.  I am not one of them, but I have no difficulty understanding their position.




D&D has two objective definitions. 1. The original game just called Dungeons and Dragons. 2. The family of games called Dungeons and Dragons.

The seperate editions are designated objectively. 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, OD&D...


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 29, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> Hmmm... no wonder I can't (and don't) follow such discussions.
> 
> I guess I can't see the difference where some internet denizens think something is vague but not other things (many being described in this thread) I guess there's inconsistency in order here, depending on one's agenda.




Just sit back and enjoy a thread about how edition wars are making the board irritating devolve into an edition war definition thread.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 29, 2008)

Kheti sa-Menik said:


> Rel, please tell me these discussions don't include yet another round of draconian censorship rules.
> 
> I agree this place has changed, and I think it is owing to the heavyhanded  and unnecessary moderation.  What happened to free flowing discussion?
> 
> I know this is an unpopular view but someone has to voice it.  I'm not sniping at anyone, but myself and a few others are growing uncomfortable with the stifling of ideas and discussion.





It's sort of simple, in my view. Moderators and such are human too, and have their own viewpoints. So they will ultimately, while trying to be "neutral" go one way or the other.

ENWorld has always had an environment where certain people were just unmoderated. Others would get timed out for some infractions, while some would just get a "general warning to the thread" without any punishment specific to them. Some is just because they're writer/ publishers, some is because they've been here so long the staff can just say "oh, that's just how Blah is".

So, lots of folks just went to their corners and didn't participate after realizing they didn't fit into EN's clique.

With 4e, it's a bigger divide. EN was always 3rd party overfriendly, and now 3pp means "3e/OGL" vs 4e...

But, it's D&D4e, it's a juggernaut that cannot be ignored.


So, I think for the first time, EN has seen a large division in the board. Until such time as one side or the other gets marginalized and finds a new playground, it's going to be like this. If the staff makes a decision and "picks a side", it'll make that process a lot quicker, by sheering away a lot of folks.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 29, 2008)

Scribble said:


> You're just subjectivey using objective terms.
> 
> D&D 1e DMG is an objective term. I can say go to the store and get me D&D 1e, and that would be all the info needed.
> 
> ...




And yet so many people HERE say 4e isn't D&D.  And so many people here have admitted that D&D can change to the point where it "wouldn't be D&D anymore," even the biggest 4e supporters.  You're taking something subjective and you're demanding it be objective.

Plus, I bet you could EASILY go to a game store and ask for something D&D-ish.  He'd ask for a bit more clarification, but just by saying that you're already getting a selection of stuff in mind.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 29, 2008)

Branduil said:


> Yogurt parsimmons googleplex eclair in the wumbotron, my tremulous omelette.




Fork a thread, and I'll be happy to talk about it.  That goes for anyone else who is interested in this side discussion.  Otherwise, it's probably been more than enough of a threadjack already, and Rel's response is exactly what I was hoping for.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 29, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> Until such time as one side or the other gets marginalized and finds a new playground, it's going to be like this. If the staff makes a decision and "picks a side", it'll make that process a lot quicker, by sheering away a lot of folks.




Alternatively, one could have a 3e forum and a 4e forum, and simply deal with anything that doesn't belong in that forum on a case-by-case basis.  Sometimes, adapting an idea from 4e is going to be a good solution to a 3e problem.  Sometimes, adapting an idea from 3e is going to be a good solution to a 4e problem.  Sometimes, something from GURPS might be interesting to players of either/both games.

I don't think one has to pick sides to have an intelligent conversation.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 29, 2008)

Scribble said:


> D&D 1e DMG is an objective term. I can say go to the store and get me D&D 1e, and that would be all the info needed.




I am *way* too interested in this sort of thing, from a philosophical standpoint, and will discuss it with you as long as you'd like (and quite probably a good deal longer), in another thread.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 29, 2008)

I'm with you, GoodKingJay. Between the failure of some mods to. . . erm. . . _moderate the forums_ and the influx of total non-contributors who wish only to flood the forums with "D&D 4e suXXorz!" crap (left largely unmoderated by aforementioned deficient moderators), I'm fed up. So I'm taking a break from ENWorld, too. See you at the end of August, folks!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 29, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Alternatively, one could have a 3e forum and a 4e forum, and simply deal with anything that doesn't belong in that forum on a case-by-case basis.



I dunno, General Discussion is the Main Forum, everything else is marginalized. If there's not enough discussion going to keep interest in a subforum, the folks will go to the other forum or go somewhere else entirely.




> Sometimes, adapting an idea from 4e is going to be a good solution to a 3e problem.  Sometimes, adapting an idea from 3e is going to be a good solution to a 4e problem.  Sometimes, something from GURPS might be interesting to players of either/both games.
> 
> I don't think one has to pick sides to have an intelligent conversation




I think you can have plenty of discussion internal to the system, but the edition wars thing will generally go badly...

Now, if there was a way to make like, ENworld 4e, and tell the 3e guys to go to Circus Maximus (or vice versa) then maybe.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 30, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> Now, if there was a way to make like, ENworld 4e, and tell the 3e guys to go to Circus Maximus (or vice versa) then maybe.




I wonder if the fear that EN World will become an exclusively 4e board is why some are trying to "win" the edition wars right now?  

("Win" is in quotes because, as should be obvious, this is not something that can be won.)


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 30, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I wonder if the fear that EN World will become an exclusively 4e board is why some are trying to "win" the edition wars right now?



Quite possible. And it works both ways - if 3E "wins" the edition war, this means 4E fans have no place to go to, either. Nobody wants to feel like a minority. 

Of course, as you say, there is nothing to win.


----------



## smootrk (Jul 30, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I wonder if the fear that EN World will become an exclusively 4e board is why some are trying to "win" the edition wars right now?



Therre may be something in this statement.

I like ENWorld (or mostly do, considering the talk of late).  Conversely, I don't particularly care for 4e.  I would prefer that my favorite gaming forums not change so drastically to 4e orientation that I completely lose interest in coming here.  Obviously, proponents of 4e would feel the opposite, stating that they would prefer their favorite gaming forums to focus also upon their chosen version of the game.

I personally think that ENWorld should stay 3e like the original title of the site was designed for, and that the ENW staff could build a new site altogether that mirrors the functionality here, but with a focus on 4e.  If 5th edition comes around, then build a new site for that crowd.  I see no reason to cram the 4e stuff into the framework build over years that caters to the 3e crowd.  
And I see this as wise from a business standpoint as well...  If I were a 4e material producer (if there actually will be any given GSL) then I would not want to waste my advertising upon folks who care little for it.  If I were a 3rd edition third party (or pathfinder oriented), I would prefer my advertising dollar go to the right audience.  If I wrote material that is edition neutral, then perhaps I would  advertise in both sites...

anyhow, my 2 cents


----------



## D'karr (Jul 30, 2008)

After seeing some of the "discussions" on this thread, I can see why you'd want to take a break.

I'd want to take one too.

Good luck.


----------



## rounser (Jul 30, 2008)

> some are trying to "win" the edition wars right now?



This is attributing ulterior motives again.  Although it may be true in some people's cases, I'm not sure it's true generally.

Some (most?) people want to big up 4E because they're genuinely enthused about it, just as others want to vent their spleens on how they've been genuinely let down by it, and are frustrated by it.  

Then you add the proselytizing - the "my way is better than your way" stuff.  And it's most common between close relations - non-gaming examples being different religious denominations, or different subgenres of a music genre.  The differences seem subtle to outsiders, but huge and fundamental, and dealbreaking, to insiders.

The problem lies in that I may be just voicing what I think, whereas the next guy sees it as an attack on what he wants to be enthused about.  I'm not "baiting" him, as I've seen it assumed. 

In time, both things (the enthusiasm and novelty of the new toy, and the disappointment and frustration of losing the future of a favourite game) will wane, and things will return to normal.

Probably.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 30, 2008)

rounser said:


> This is attributing ulterior motives again.




No.  It's raising a question.  And it's accepting that folks (myself included) may act for multiple motives, some of which they may not be fully aware of.  (I understand, of course, that not everyone accepts this premise, but I frequently find that stepping back and examining whether or not what I am doing matches what I believe my motives to be reveals undercurrents of motive which I was not consciously aware of previously.  To this degree, at least, I accept the Freudian hypothesis.  YMMV.)



> Some (most?) people want to big up 4E because they're genuinely enthused about it, just as others want to vent their spleens on how they've been genuinely let down by it, and are frustrated by it.




No doubt.  But the question remains, why do those who want to big up 4e care about the spleen-venters, or vice versa?  To my mind, this requires a different motive than mere enthusiasm (or lack thereof).  Edition wars are built out of proselytizing - the "my way is better than your way" stuff - and this is what my question related to directly:

_I wonder if the fear that EN World will become an exclusively 4e board is why some are trying to "win" the edition wars right now?​_
I do not say "I wonder if the fear that EN World will become an exclusively 4e board is why some are trying to discuss 4e right now?"


RC


P.S.:  Just saw The Dark Knight last night, and it was better than the hype!


----------



## hewligan (Jul 30, 2008)

I come here less and less as well. One reason is the incessant bickering and stupid edition wars. Another is related to the above: namely that it is virtually impossible to find a thread that is about some aspect of roleplaying that does not descend into the above. Then there is the lack of a stealth skin that is killing my eyes. Lastly, the frequent down-times are making it very hard for me to keep my PbF game ticking along on this site, and the fact that I host my PbF game here is the main reason I also read and post here. I am due to finish my PbF game in the next few weeks, and the next installment may be on another board (a white one with black text).

I do still love ENWorld, I just find the above are making it less and less rewarding to visit. So, in short, I agree with the OP.


----------



## rounser (Jul 30, 2008)

> And it's accepting that folks (myself included) may act for multiple motives, some of which they may not be fully aware of. (I understand, of course, that not everyone accepts this premise, but I frequently find that stepping back and examining whether or not what I am doing matches what I believe my motives to be reveals undercurrents of motive which I was not consciously aware of previously. To this degree, at least, I accept the Freudian hypothesis. YMMV.)



Yeah, okay, I'll buy that.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, though.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 30, 2008)

This is an interesting discussion. Coming to ENWorld as someone who was on Usenet, many times I say "what's all the fuss about?"

But still, we have "no politics," "grandma friendly," and "no attacks on a person," as rules, and that's fairly effective.

The real problem that I see is that there is a significant amount of the core ENWorld audience that *simply doesn't like 4E* and is still looking for a direction to go to for future games, now that 3X is out of print. When I say that, I'm not talking about the "drive by" posters who come in, make some flames and then leave, I mean the core membership who have been here since the beginning. I don't know if people realize it, but I am one of those people, so I recognize the original crew most of the time, and put a lot more stock in what they have to say.

I think for a lot of them (and me, partially, although I am playing 4E I have a lot of issues with it) are frustrated because they've been on board the train for a long time, and it has gone in a direction they aren't comfortable with, leaving them without a game in print that they support. It's only natural that you see some acting out because of that. Is it a good thing? No, but when you actually call these folks on it, they're generally reasonable and stop. In these cases, I think peer pressure is the way to achieve better results.

But on the other side, I think a lot of folks who are upset at the claims about 4E really need to relax a little more as well. To take the "video game" quality, you see a lot of drive by posters using it, and moderation typically steps in and deals with the offender. At the same time, there are a number of qualities of 4E that you can legitimately argue are video gamey. Note that I'm not saying they *are *that way, but that the issue is up for debate.

For me, it comes down to "is this thread a legitimate conversation, and can I bring something to it/learn something from it." If the answer to both is "no" I just stay out of it. I also try to remember that even if the posters tells me otherwise, everything on message boards is only the poster's opinion.

So that's my $.02 worth.

--Steve


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 30, 2008)

rounser said:


> Yeah, okay, I'll buy that.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, though.




Sure.  

But, if you are trying to figure out why something is happening, it's often useful to look beyond the surface.  

Again, YMMV.

RC


----------



## Scribble (Jul 30, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> And yet so many people HERE say 4e isn't D&D.




In their subjective viewpoint.



> And so many people here have admitted that D&D can change to the point where it "wouldn't be D&D anymore," even the biggest 4e supporters.




In their subjective viewpoint. 



> You're taking something subjective and you're demanding it be objective.




No, I'm stating there are ojective things, but that it's possible to subjectively use them.

The Statue of liberty is objective.

Statue of Libertyesque or Statue of Liberty like qualities... Subjective.



> Plus, I bet you could EASILY go to a game store and ask for something D&D-ish.  He'd ask for a bit more clarification, but just by saying that you're already getting a selection of stuff in mind.




Which is exactly what i said. You can use subjective terms, they just require more definition or description to be useful.

In order for the shop keep to get you what you want, he'll need a better idea of what you consider D&D 1eish.

It's slightly easier in this case, because your subjective term is pointing back to the objetive though. 

If I came in and said, I'm looking for something bubbly... that's a bit more open ended.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 30, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I wonder if the fear that EN World will become an exclusively 4e board is why some are trying to "win" the edition wars right now?
> 
> ("Win" is in quotes because, as should be obvious, this is not something that can be won.)




From my vantage, EN has always been VERY pro-3pp, and dug into 3.5e well enough with many C&C threads and such, but they were also easy enough to marginalize to separate forums. Now, that 3pp loyalty has a lot of folks sticking to 3e and demonizing 4e.

So, I could easily see the 3e "faction" keeping EN and the 4e guys finding a forum where no one calls 4e videogamey...

Or it could go the other way, and as support for 3e is eroded, the board members will find themselves migrating to boards for their individual games, and eventually someone might have a core 3e game forum that caters to them...

It's really sort of up in the air right now, and I think the folks that suffer are the ones that like both editions, or just want to play.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 30, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> So, I could easily see the 3e "faction" keeping EN and the 4e guys finding a forum where no one calls 4e videogamey...
> 
> Or it could go the other way, and as support for 3e is eroded, the board members will find themselves migrating to boards for their individual games, and eventually someone might have a core 3e game forum that caters to them...




I would rather neither of the above.

I look forward to a 5e with the strengths of both games.  

RC


----------



## Scribble (Jul 30, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would rather neither of the above.
> 
> I look forward to a 5e with the strengths of both games.
> 
> RC




That's like D&D with the power of 2 D&Ds while one is on fire, and the other has shark teeth!


----------



## Branduil (Jul 30, 2008)

Assuming 4e doesn't suddenly bomb, I think this forum will inevitably become 4e oriented, barring intervention from the administrators discouraging or banning its discussion, and I don't think that's likely. It's simply the natural way for things to go, water flowing downhill and all that. EnWorld is currently in the midst of a shift, and a shift is always painful. People get angry and insulted. And in the end the board will change, some will stay, some will be replaced by new faces. You can't know if the change will be good or bad, but change is inevitable.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 30, 2008)

Thread forked re: discussion of D&D as an objective term.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?p=4404924#post4404924


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 30, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I wonder if the fear that EN World will become an exclusively 4e board is why some are trying to "win" the edition wars right now?




I'm going to quote myself! I wrote this a couple of weeks ago in a edition wars thread, and I think the quote will link to the original post? I dunno if it works across threads. We shall see!



ThirdWizard said:


> I think there is an underlying problem to this whole edition war thing. It seems to me that ENWorld itself is in an identity crisis, split down the middle between 3e and 4e players who are both worried about being marginalized as far as the community is concerned. ENWorld has a great community, and people who have chosen one edition of D&D over the other are, I think, rightly worried that the other edition is going to push them away from the community base.
> 
> The people sticking with 3e are worried that ENWorld will leave them with nowhere to really go to discuss their favorite edition. It _is_ called Murrus' 4th Edition D&D now after all. ENWorld has been a 3e haven on the internet for intelligent discussion for about a decade now, the premiere 3e site. If it suddenly jumps into 4e head first, where does that leave them? They've put a lot of work and effort into ENWorld, building the community that makes this site so great, and to be summarily tossed, well, that's not fair at all.
> 
> ...




In other words: yes. I totally think its about winning ENWorld. Or, more precisely, _both sides_ being in fear of not being welcome here.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 30, 2008)

Scribble said:


> That's like D&D with the power of 2 D&Ds while one is on fire, and the other has shark teeth!




*Exactly what I want!*


----------



## JeffB (Jul 30, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:


> I'm going to quote myself! I wrote this a couple of weeks ago in a edition wars thread, and I think the quote will link to the original post? I dunno if it works across threads. We shall see!
> 
> In other words: yes. I totally think its about winning ENWorld. Or, more precisely, _both sides_ being in fear of not being welcome here.




I think the post of your  own that you quoted, is pretty much spot-on.  While I don't take my gaming seriously enough to *really* worry about not having a place to discuss my game of choice, I'm finding most forums pretty jumpy and volatile since 4E was announced, and even more-so now that it has been released.

As someone who likes 4E , and gave up on 3rd years ago, I'm not finding many forums very hospitable at the moment. Whether it's here, Necro, Paizo, whatever- most threads degenerate into some kind of BS Edition Wars at some point. I've yet to find a forum where I can just go and talk about 4E without SOMEONE coming in and telling us how X, Y, and Z in 4E suck and 3rd edition did it better. And I KNOW there are pro 4E people here on ENworld whom are just as guilty with the 4E can do no wrong diatribe.

I'd really like to see a "general forum" split so pro 4E'ers and Pro 3E'ers each have a place to talk without all the threadcrapping.

Or better yet, how about an separate Edition War forum like they had on DragonsFoot? With a slight difference- If you get personal with someone you get a permanent ban. No second chances, no 3 strikes. This way anyone who wants to debate can do so all night long without the rest of us having to be subjected to it in nearly every freaking thread!


----------



## Imp (Jul 30, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I look forward to a 5e with the strengths of both games.



To run with this a bit, I think most all of the vocal 4e "haters" around here think that 4e has some very definite strengths, but are also annoyed by other aspects of the rules. The people that flat out hate 4e don't post much, because they have no investment in the new game.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 30, 2008)

JeffB said:


> Or better yet, how about an separate Edition War forum like they had on DragonsFoot? With a slight difference- If you get personal with someone you get a permanent ban. No second chances, no 3 strikes. This way anyone who wants to debate can do so all night long without the rest of us having to be subjected to it in nearly every freaking thread!




It sounds tempting at first, a place to blow off the edition-argument steam. But I'd be quite concerned that it would spill over. It's true that ENWorld (and plenty of other forums) are comparatively inhospitable now, even with a moratorium on overt edition war threads. But I'm not sure that making some of the behavior acceptible and segregating it is really going to improve behavior in the rest of the forums. I'd be more concerned with even more unacceptible behavior.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jul 30, 2008)

JeffB said:


> I think the post of your  own that you quoted, is pretty much spot-on.  While I don't take my gaming seriously enough to *really* worry about not having a place to discuss my game of choice, I'm finding most forums pretty jumpy and volatile since 4E was announced, and even more-so now that it has been released.
> 
> As someone who likes 4E , and gave up on 3rd years ago, I'm not finding many forums very hospitable at the moment. Whether it's here, Necro, Paizo, whatever- most threads degenerate into some kind of BS Edition Wars at some point. I've yet to find a forum where I can just go and talk about 4E without SOMEONE coming in and telling us how X, Y, and Z in 4E suck and 3rd edition did it better. And I KNOW there are pro 4E people here on ENworld whom are just as guilty with the 4E can do no wrong diatribe.
> 
> ...




This post.

My experience.

100%.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 31, 2008)

Imp said:


> To run with this a bit, I think most all of the vocal 4e "haters" around here think that 4e has some very definite strengths, but are also annoyed by other aspects of the rules. The people that flat out hate 4e don't post much, because they have no investment in the new game.




I cannot argue with you here.

Let me also add, that 5e ("D&D with the power of 2 D&Ds while one is on fire, and the other has shark teeth!") ought to be OGL.  GSL sucks!


RC


----------



## Family (Jul 31, 2008)

Just took a break, it was nice. Being back is nicer. A fine establishment we have here.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 1, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> No. And that is sad, because there are a lot of good and innovative video games and using video games only as a kind of "insult" or negative is unfair to them.
> 
> But, Hussar, didn't you want to focus more on the "real role-playing-related stuff" instead of the meta-discussions and hot-button-discussions, to save your own sanity and enjoyment of the game and this board?




Sigh.  Heh.  Sucks me in every time.  



Arnwyn said:


> Yeah, I can. "Elegant". WTF does that mean when applied to RPG rules?
> 
> (Of course, I think someone saying "simplicity of monsters" and stopping at that is also inappropriately vague. I certainly don't know what that means. What's simple? Why does _that person _ - not necessarily anyone else - think there's simplicity there?)






Steely Dan said:


> Non-cumbersome/clunky.






Arnwyn said:


> Hmmm... no wonder I can't (and don't) follow such discussions.
> 
> I guess I can't see the difference where some internet denizens think something is vague but not other things (many being described in this thread) I guess there's inconsistency in order here, depending on one's agenda.





Bingo!  We have a winner.  Take the phrase "elegant".  Arnwyn didn't understand the term.  Fair enough, I'm fairly stupid, so there's lots of things I don't understand.  However, the question was answered in three words and nailed the definition down entirely.  No ambiguity, not misunderstanding.

We've got multiple, multi-page threads asking what "video-gamey" means.  And still no answer.

See the difference?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 1, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> /snip
> 
> So, I could easily see the 3e "faction" keeping EN and the 4e guys finding a forum where no one calls 4e videogamey...
> 
> ...




Just to point something out here.  I've argued strongly against terming 3e "videogamey" for years as well.  Let's not pretend that this is something new or even has anything to do with edition.  It doesn't for me.  I don't care what edition you're talking about.  Video-gamey and most of the other hot-button, intellectually lazy terms out there are just useless to conversation and act as active barriers to communication.

This is not an edition specific thing.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 1, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Just to point something out here.  I've argued strongly against terming 3e "videogamey" for years as well.  Let's not pretend that this is something new or even has anything to do with edition.  It doesn't for me.  I don't care what edition you're talking about.  Video-gamey and most of the other hot-button, intellectually lazy terms out there are just useless to conversation and act as active barriers to communication.
> 
> This is not an edition specific thing.




I totally remember posting a reply here, but now it's gone!

It was about people that were describing it as videogamey and meant it, but couldn't defend their feeling a point by point debate style like EN goes for and stuff!

Seriously, it existed!

I will add now, that the Anti-WotC vibe from such things as the Gleemax (or rather, Glee that it's dead) thread is pretty prevalent in ENWorld...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I don't care what edition you're talking about.  Video-gamey and most of the other hot-button, intellectually lazy terms out there are just useless to conversation and act as active barriers to communication.




"Hot-button" and "intellectually lazy" are at least as vague as video-gamey.  So, if they are "just useless to conversation and act as active barriers to communication", why are you using them?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Bingo!  We have a winner.  Take the phrase "elegant".  Arnwyn didn't understand the term.  Fair enough, I'm fairly stupid, so there's lots of things I don't understand.  However, the question was answered in three words and nailed the definition down entirely.  No ambiguity, not misunderstanding.




Assuming, of course, that we agree about what "non-cumbersome/clunky" means in this context.  Or that this is all that elegance means in terms of game design, which I do not think it is.  It is, for example, at least as important IMHO that a system be appropriate to be elegant.  "Flip a coin" or "DM desides" are the most "elegant" solutions to any problem given the definition you believe entirely nails the term down, but I doubt very much that this is what one expects from an "elegant" ruleset!  



> We've got multiple, multi-page threads asking what "video-gamey" means.  And still no answer.




Barring, of course, the answers given (including mine).

Video-gamey:  Having qualities akin to a video game.  Specifically, the degree to which mundane abilities/decisions are constrained by the ruleset/gamist concerns.

RC


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 2, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Video-gamey:  Having qualities akin to a video game.  Specifically, the degree to which mundane abilities/decisions are constrained by the ruleset/gamist concerns.




That was not what I understood from our discussion.

What I understood was: A feeling the player gets from his choices being constrained by the system that reminds him of playing a video game.   Note that his PC's choices are not so constrained.


----------



## Vurt (Aug 2, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> That was not what I understood from our discussion.
> 
> What I understood was: A feeling the player gets from his choices being constrained by the system that reminds him of playing a video game.   Note that his PC's choices are not so constrained.




I think you could add, "those qualities of a game which remind you of elements usually found in a video game."

For example, all editions of D&D to some degree have usually tailored challenges around the party level.  As level went up, so did the challenges.  The lower level challenges still existed, but you didn't focus on them, presumably lower level adventurers dealt with them, or you handwaved that the party handled them out of game, or you just made them invisible to the players.

This is not unlike the rendering process of most 3D video games--you only focus on the objects directly in front of the player, and toss out anything that might otherwise exist on the map outside the field of view of the frame.

If you play both RPGs and are familiar with the language of 3D shooters, you might make the connection, and thereafter be reminded of it every time you encounter it in the RPG.  And even though you could find it in evidence in the RPG long before video games ever came out, well that's just history, and it really doesn't necessarily impinge on how someone might "feel" when it's encountered.

And I wouldn't say it was unjustified if that player looked at how all the monsters he encountered were level-appropriate and said that that felt "video-gamey" to him.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 2, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> That was not what I understood from our discussion.
> 
> What I understood was: A feeling the player gets from his choices being constrained by the system that reminds him of playing a video game.   Note that his PC's choices are not so constrained.




Different phraseology, same basic idea.

The constraint was specifically on non-supernatural actions, though....those which would not be so constrained by any sort of "real" world, thus violating the player's sense of verisimilitude.  The feeling that the game is "videogame-y" is based upon the degree to which possible choices feel scripted by the designer(s).

However, your second sentence is open to debate (in any system).  

RC


----------



## That One Guy (Aug 2, 2008)

Family said:


> Just took a break, it was nice. Being back is nicer. A fine establishment we have here.



Dude, Family, welcome back! (I actually was wondering where you had gone off to when I made my comment to this thread)


----------



## Hussar (Aug 2, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> "Hot-button" and "intellectually lazy" are at least as vague as video-gamey.  So, if they are "just useless to conversation and act as active barriers to communication", why are you using them?




Hrm, Hot button - terms deliberately chosen to provoke a negative reaction.  Intellectually lazy - not bothering to actually attempt to communicate in any meaningful way, but rather, simply trying to score points in an internet debate.



Raven Crowking said:


> Assuming, of course, that we agree about what "non-cumbersome/clunky" means in this context.  Or that this is all that elegance means in terms of game design, which I do not think it is.  It is, for example, at least as important IMHO that a system be appropriate to be elegant.  "Flip a coin" or "DM desides" are the most "elegant" solutions to any problem given the definition you believe entirely nails the term down, but I doubt very much that this is what one expects from an "elegant" ruleset!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh, true, we can argue about whether a given rule is elegant or not.  Fair enough.  But, as you say yourself, we're on the same page when discussing things.  Is X elegant?  Well, we can discuss that.  But, at no point are we disagreeing about what elegant means.

If a term generates fifteen different definitions from fifteen different people, I would say that that term is extremely vague.  The fact that the term is also very loaded and carries strong negative connotations only hurts any attempt to communicate.



LostSoul said:


> That was not what I understood from our discussion.
> 
> What I understood was: A feeling the player gets from his choices being constrained by the system that reminds him of playing a video game.   Note that his PC's choices are not so constrained.




Heh.  Eight pages of definitions, every one of them different.  It doesn't matter what you or I think it means.  The term is so broad it can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean.  In other words, the best defition that I can think of is, "I don't like X.  I don't like (some elements from) video games. Therefore X is videogamey".

Are there commonalities?  Of course their are.  But, why not actually just stick to those rather than cloud the issue?  

A while ago I talked about Shadowfax being a Pokemount.  I did it for two reasons.  One was to tweak RC's nose (which is always fun ) and the other was to actually make a point.

In the discussion, RC raised criticisms about the 3e mechanics for a paladin's mount and couched these in the term "pokemount".  I asked him to clarify what he actually meant by this term and things went back and forth for a while and it eventually boiled down that the only real point of comparison between Pocket Monsters and the paladin's mount is the fact that they are both summonable.  The resemble each other in no other way - thematically or mechanically.  

So, what did Pokemount actually mean?  I understood that it was a negative term in context, but, since the only commonalities were the fact that both come out when called, I didn't really get the point.  

Had RC simply stated something along the lines of, "I find the mechanics for summoning a paladin's mount to be flat, bland and boring" then we could have a discussion.  Instead, we wound up going around and around the pedantic track, yet again, because he insisted on using a neologism that didn't make any real sense.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Aug 2, 2008)

Maybe all the negativity stems from the fact that a whole heck of a lot of people don't like 4E?

Their opinions shouldn't be silenced just because other people do like it.

There's a message here and the sooner WotC wises up and admits it, the better off they'll be:* they screwed up the release of 4E*.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 4, 2008)

Ogrork the Mighty said:


> There's a message here and the sooner WotC wises up and admits it, the better off they'll be:* they screwed up the release of 4E*.



Did they, though?


----------



## Rel (Aug 4, 2008)

Ogrork the Mighty said:


> Maybe all the negativity stems from the fact that a whole heck of a lot of people don't like 4E?
> 
> Their opinions shouldn't be silenced just because other people do like it.
> 
> There's a message here and the sooner WotC wises up and admits it, the better off they'll be:* they screwed up the release of 4E*.






Jhaelen said:


> Did they, though?




This is an excellent conversation not to have in this thread.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 4, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Different phraseology, same basic idea.
> 
> The constraint was specifically on non-supernatural actions, though....those which would not be so constrained by any sort of "real" world, thus violating the player's sense of verisimilitude.  The feeling that the game is "videogame-y" is based upon the degree to which possible choices feel scripted by the designer(s).
> 
> ...




Yeah, the basic idea is the same.

I did want to put that second sentence in there because that's where all the confusion on my part was coming from.  I remember the argument like this:

RC: You can't disarm someone more than once per encounter.  That's a constraint like a video game.
LS: No, your PC can disarm someone more than once per encounter, and here's a whole bunch of ways how he can.
<argue about those examples for a while>
RC: It's the player's experience that matters - he can choose to use the mundane disarm power once per encounter, and that constraint makes it feel like a video game.
LS: Oh, yeah, I get it now.  It's not so much about what's going on in the fiction, it's about the choices the player has.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 4, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Intellectually lazy - not bothering to actually attempt to communicate in any meaningful way, but rather, simply trying to score points in an internet debate.




You will note, I hope, that I have said repeatedly that I fully believe that we are as much on the same page with the term "videogame-y" as we are with the term "elegance".  The difference, IMHO, as that when you use certain terms, some choose not to understand, because they are not interested in attempting to communicate in any meaningfuly way.

Even if a "term is so broad it can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean", if you are interested in communicating in a meaningful way, and I am willing to elaborate what I mean, the only way you can cry "I don't understand what is meant!" is if you are simply trying to score points in an internet debate.



> In the discussion, RC raised criticisms about the 3e mechanics for a paladin's mount and couched these in the term "pokemount".  I asked him to clarify what he actually meant by this term and things went back and forth for a while and it eventually boiled down that the only real point of comparison between Pocket Monsters and the paladin's mount is the fact that they are both summonable.  The resemble each other in no other way - thematically or mechanically.




Actually, I argued that the 3.5 mechanic for the paladin's mount was inappropriate given the general context of the paladin's mount from any previous edition, effectively making it similar to a pokemon.  You (and others) argued that this is no different from any other type of summoning, and I disagreed.  You now seem to feel that your point of view is somehow what things "boiled down" to, but I feel differently.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 4, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> Yeah, the basic idea is the same.




Despite claims of some to the contrary.  



> I did want to put that second sentence in there because that's where all the confusion on my part was coming from.




It is important, when we are talking about how things "feel" that the feeling players get might not be due to actual constraints, but rather due to perception of restraints due to presentation.  For example, some people felt that 3e was less DM- and Rule 0-friendly than previous editions.  Rule 0 was still there, but it wasn't presented nearly as strongly.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Aug 5, 2008)

Crap, reply got eaten.

RC, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.  You seem to feel that it is incumbant upon the reader to parse your meaning, regardless of the language you use.  I feel the opposite.  It is incumbent upon the writer to make his meaning as clearly as possible.  Using vague language is poor writing.  Full stop.  I think that using certain terms, loaded language that is typically meant to provoke negative reactions, is poor writing.

What you call censorship, I call effective communication.  If you cannot make your point without using this language, then perhaps your point isn't as strong as you think it is.  You should be able to communicate in plain English, without relying on neologisms.  And you here is meant in the universal, not you specifically.  

In other words, if you have two choices - one to use vague short forms that confuse the issue, or two, to use clear, concise language that makes your meaning plain, choosing the second is ALWAYS the better choice.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 5, 2008)

Hussar said:


> RC, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.




Agreed.  But disagree with what I am saying, not what you would like me to be saying.



> You seem to feel that it is incumbant upon the reader to parse your meaning, regardless of the language you use.




No.  I feel that, in the particular cases we are herein discussing, that the language is more than clear enough, and that if you are determined to "not get it" then you will not get it no matter what language is used.

I think "I understand this enough to be insulted, and feel I have to respond, but it has no meaning and I don't understand it" is an intellectual fraud.

I think that, in the case of any language, what is meant might not be understood, and it is always okay to ask for clarification.  If, however, once it is clarified, the response is "Well, that isn't what X, Y, and Z mean by it" then you are no longer responding to meaning, but attempting to hide meaning in a battle over terminology.  Once more, I believe this is an intellectual fraud.

I believe that the purpose of both types of (closely related) intellectual fraud is to censor content.

Clear?


RC


----------



## Eridanis (Aug 5, 2008)

This thread seems to have served its purpose, and I'm closing it by request of the OP.


----------

