Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[E. Albright]

you're reading an opinion into what I'm writing that simply isn't there

I am only saying what your projecting not meaning. So take what I am saying as more of a warning that you are likely not saying what you mean.

This cuts both ways. You have a notion of what I'm saying independent of my actual words. Take this as more of a warning that you are not likely reading what I'm saying according to straightforward semantic interpretation. You're resolving pragmatic ambiguity according to a preconceived notion of my intent.

"streamlined", "mainstream", or even "lowest common denominator" doesn't make it bad. It makes it... different.

Problem is that these all carry Negative connotations and create a "Us against them" atmosphere.

Problem is that you're the one who introduced all these terms into the conversation. You've created an "Us against strawthem" atmosphere. "I never took it personally because I heard it all before." Etc. You know what I'm thinking before I think it, let alone write it. So while it's possible I'm doing a poor job of qualifying everything I say to paranoidly eliminate all possible ambiguity, it's also possible that you took a look at my dislike for 4e and decided you knew what I was "really" saying based on all you'd heard before.

why won't a paladin who is so trained attack them, in addition to the divine zap?

Training Focus. a Paladin isn't a fighter.

And that's exactly my point. There's no reason for this beyond arbitrary class strictures emphasizing equality over consistency.

What this comes down to is how much you like classes. 4e puts class above all. Essentially everything you do is dictated by class. All abilities are class-specific. Everything is an exception, and almost nothing is a universal rule.

If this is what you look for in a game, bully for you. For my money, it's a straightjacket, and I'll gladly take a convoluted ruleset if that's what it takes to avoid it.


You asked me to elaborate on why I felt 4e was MMO-esque. I attempted to expound in good faith. I'm beginning to question my decision to do so, as I can't help but feel that your call for elaboration reflected a desire to pick a fight with a surrogate of previously encountered critics moreso than a desire to understand why I felt it was MMO-y. To this effect I'll bow out of the thread at this point. You like 4e, I don't. Means nothing, implies nothing. We both have our reasons, and our reasons are normative, not positive. Good day.

[Neonivek]

Naw my asking for people to explain it mostly comes from the fact that I constantly hear these statements as a "Taken as a given" sort of way which makes it hard to get into.

Which is a rather large barrier to communication.

Some aspects of what I said are also misinterpreted, my fault, which is hillarious because I intended them as a "Don't worry" sort of statement but instead they kinda have the effect of me jumping down your throat and biting your head off. So I have to appologise for that.

Problem is that you're the one who introduced all these terms into the conversation. You've created an "Us against strawthem" atmosphere

No, the second you said "MMO" was where you unintentionally brought those in. It is often unavoidable.

To this effect I'll bow out of the thread at this point.

What? Dang, well I take this as my fault. I am sorry it wasn't my intention I guess I got lost in holding up a conversation and trying to play safe.

Really I am not angry or anything nor do I have anything really to prove here, you really don't have to leave.

it's also possible that you took a look at my dislike for 4e and decided you knew what I was "really" saying based on all you'd heard before

Well you don't really dislike 4e you just dislike the idea.

I didn't decide I knew what you were saying in advanced, I just had a general idea... Asked for you to expand... after which you didn't stray from that generalisation. After which I said "I heard it before" with the faulted impression that it would actually make you feel more at ease and more willing to talk (Yes I am weird).

bully for you

Wait what? Is this a typo or a freudian slip?

I'll gladly take a convoluted ruleset if that's what it takes to avoid it.

Well 4e is good if you want to put in some extra strategy and have a GM who wants to put an emphasis on Roleplay.

Though I will say that 4e is far from my favorite and isn't even my favorite d20 (My favorite d20 is Mutants and Masterminds 2nd edition)

What you need to do to get out of Arbitrary rules is use Open creation system games. (My favorite systems are open creation systems)

Hmm for some reason I think you played GURPS, that would certainly be close to the definition of convoluted (The part of GURPS I don't like is they sometimes overcharge you for readily available technology)

If you are looking for something new try the newest Fate RPG. It isn't exactly new but it pretty much combines roleplay and stats into one far more then any other system including allowing players some GM ability.

[E. Albright]

I can do one more round of discussion I suppose - well, metadiscussion, anyway.

Problem is that you're the one who introduced all these terms into the conversation. You've created an "Us against strawthem" atmosphere

No, the second you said "MMO" was where you unintentionally brought those in. It is often unavoidable.

Um. No. This is exactly what I was talking about. "MMO" does not mean "streamlined mainstream least common denominator". It means "massively multiplayer online [game]". Period, full stop. That's its semantics. That's all I meant by it. You have a certain pragmatic parsing that differs from that. In the context of this thread, I don't. I was not the one that introduced these ideas to the conversation, you did.

Look, Neonivek. You take for granted that "MMO" implies certain things. It doesn't necessarily, though. It's contextual. That you insist on interpreting it as doing so regardless of context does not make it so. I gave reason to interpret it otherwise. You chose to ignore it in favor of your pre-existing assumptions. The interpretation you chose to take was hardly unavoidable. To the contrary.

I didn't decide I knew what you were saying in advanced, I just had a general idea...

IOW, you thought you knew what I was saying in advance.
 

Asked for you to expand... after which you didn't stray from that generalisation.

Yes... funny, that. You ask me to expound upon my comparison of it to an MMO. I proceeded to do so, and focused all my criticism on the generalization that "4e is MMO-esque". Utterly bizarre. Can't imagine why I didn't stray.

After which I said "I heard it before" with the faulted impression that it would actually make you feel more at ease and more willing to talk (Yes I am weird).

"I heard it all before" is generally a phrase used dismissively, not reassuringly. More pointedly, while it could be taken as such given the context, I was somewhat disinclined to do so because at that point you were already putting words into my mouth, suggesting a more dismissive interpretation. E.g., "From the lack of Instant Kill effects, to no longer disarming someone to rolls a 1, and probably healing surges as well."? Where on earth do you get that from? I see zero connection between these points and the idea that 4e bears some resemblance to an MMO, either stylistically or mechanically.

Seriously, I have no idea what you were driving at with that point. Which is my overarching complaint. Your argument has included a number of unstated assumptions about where I'm coming from which are not borne out by a straightforward reading of what I wrote. Hence my assertion that you're trying to use me as a surrogate to have an argument with someone you previously encountered. Which is, to say the least, exasperating.

Wait what? Is this a typo or a freudian slip?

*sigh*

"Bully for you" is a phrase meaning something along the lines of "good for you". It's slightly archaic, and its modern usage tends to include an implication of sarcasm or (as I was aiming for) exasperation in it.

Hmm for some reason I think you played GURPS, that would certainly be close to the definition of convoluted

I never played GURPS. Nor did I ever desire to. I will say that I'd be impressed if it could top the (glorious) convolution of the game I cited upthread.

[Neonivek]

Can't imagine why I didn't stray

You could have went to an area that people don't usually cover.

That you insist on interpreting it as doing so regardless of context does not make it so

Not really the point. There is always a difference between what you say and what you mean to say.

I see zero connection between these points and the idea that 4e bears some resemblance to an MMO, either stylistically or mechanically.

It becomes more apperant when you take the negative connotations from being an MMO and expand upon them. Well No Instant Death Effects is in MMOs (though there are death effects).

*sigh*

And now my wholehearted attempt to appologise is at this point officially being used to bash me and I am angry. 

I will say that I'd be impressed if it could top the (glorious) convolution of the game I cited upthread

I'd personally would think Riddle of Steel could but likely not. Though I don't play Riddle of Steel enough to comment. Your not likely to kill a dragon with anything less then a mounted charge or a really nice spell!

Other then that there isn't much else, Topic Creator might as well lock the thread unless he has more questions.

[E. Albright]

You could have went to an area that people don't usually cover.

Not really the point. You asked me why I thought it was MMO-esque. While suggesting that people generally don't cover any of that: "I've heard it was World of Warcraft the RPG many times as well but they never really go further." So you hardly have ground at this late stage to complain that the parallels I saw were not sufficiently novel for your satisfaction.

That you insist on interpreting it as doing so regardless of context does not make it so

Not really the point. There is always a difference between what you say and what you mean to say.

How dare you call me a skulking, hidebound structuralist who's stuck in the pre-Derridian era of textual interpretation?!?!?!?!? How dare you scornfully accuse me of creating an oppressive literary hierarchy?

That is what you said, even if you didn't mean it. It is often unavoidable.

Unless maybe I shouldn't be privileging my pragmatic interpretation of what you wrote above all others, to the point of ignoring conflicting contextual clues and and insisting that you're introducing previously unseen concepts into the discourse.

I see zero connection between these points and the idea that 4e bears some resemblance to an MMO, either stylistically or mechanically.

It becomes more apperant when you take the negative connotations from being an MMO and expand upon them. Well No Instant Death Effects is in MMOs (though there are death effects).

Not really the point. You seem to have in mind some specific set of objections that I "must" have to MMOs (and by correlation 4e) - why exactly should I think "no instant death effects" is a negative connotation? You're arguing with a straw man, and I can't even make out its form.

And now my wholehearted attempt to appologise is at this point officially being used to bash me and I am angry. 

I'm sorry, should I have not interpreted your slightly confusing "Freudian slip" comment about my saying bully for you as unfamiliarity with the phrase? That was the only sense I could make of it.

Other then that there isn't much else, Topic Creator might as well lock the thread unless he has more questions.

On this point I heartily agree. I don't want to get into an argument over discourse theory vs. deconstructionism, or the dangers of being an uncooperative listener vs. ignoring the fallacy of intent. We've already skirted the edge of that abyss.

[Jurph]

i must suggest that you cast off the horribly broken 4th edition.

3.5 is a much better system.

What does the 3½th Edition Monster Manual say about trolls?  Oh yeah: "Do not feed them." 
This is where I should have locked the thread.  Not sure how I failed to notice the flame-war going on around me.  Y'all can have a cat-fight somewhere else.