Sadly, the new version of Firefox does not yet support FFVB .

Quote from: CRKrueger;438941You look on the boards of any MMOG and you'll see the same stuff going on at WotC forums, talking about patches, nerfs, certain builds being imba, the whole deal.  It's all a part of MMOG culture...

Those exact same things were discussed with 3e, 3.5, and I would imagine they're being discussed with Pathfinder.

It's not "MMOG culture" infiltrating tabletop gaming - what you're seeing is, first and foremost, the means to have these sorts of discussions and games where there are enough mechanical choices to make them worthwhile.

Seanchai

Quote from: StormBringer;439006Allow me one counter-argument, then, and I will offer no recriminations if you choose not to address it:
While not being recorded on the character sheet is not an absolute barrier to existing, most groups did have a pretty solid understanding this was the minimum requirement; ie, it has to be written down somewhere.

Err. No. That was never my experience. What you'd get at the game tables I played with over the years would be a general "Ah fuck sakes, no space for it, wait *turns the sheet over and writes it down there*" That's it. When character sheets were actually used, that is.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;439009Just try to calm down a little. It's one thing to be cranky, but it's another thing to go apeshit. Please don't go apeshit.

I agree with the feeling. While I think you have the right of it, Justin, I think you need to breathe a little. Doom actually tried to calm things down with his last few posts, and you should follow the hint. Does you no good to keep on charging, especially considering you do have valid points in the first place.

Quote from: Aos;439011Sadly, the new version of Firefox does not yet support FFVB .

Neither Chrome. That is sad.

Quote from: Seanchai;439018Those exact same things were discussed with 3e, 3.5, and I would imagine they're being discussed with Pathfinder.

It's not "MMOG culture" infiltrating tabletop gaming - what you're seeing is, first and foremost, the means to have these sorts of discussions and games where there are enough mechanical choices to make them worthwhile.

Seanchai

Interesting point.

OK, my post stating that I longed for the return of the days of CavScout was supposed to be facetious, but after thinking about it I now realize that it was a stupid thing to post.  In no way do I wish to have that troll back here on this forum.  I sincerely apologize for that lapse in judgment.

I disagree with Windjammer's and Sacrificial Lamb's assessment of Doom's participation in this thread.  In my reading of the thread, it is evident to me that Doom was the instigator and continued to antagonize Justin and anyone else who disagreed with what he posted.  Doom puts on a smarmy-faced front in which he appears to be calm and rational but is really trolling, and doesn't seem to grasp why his opponent is so riled up.  Justin called Doom on his bullshit trolling and transparent trolling tricks.

To his credit, Doom has raised some valid criticisms of 4e D&D in this thread.

Quote from: Doom;438791Touche, and apologies.

So, let me try to move things back to the 4e postmortem.

How do others feel about all the errata? Having posted that a few hours ago, I'm still conflicted about it. Yes, it's good to try to fix things that clearly needed fixing...but I hate that my books went obsolete so quickly.

Here's how Steve Winter, current editor of the magazines, feels about errata:

Quote from: SWBeginning on January 3, we launched new procedures that put magazine articles through the same vetting process as everything else that comes out of R&D. Up until now, the magazines operated semi-independently. We didn't treat them as throw-away objects, but they didn't get the full R&D analysis that a Heroes of the Fallen Lands would receive, either. Now they do.

The two chief reasons for this change are 1) to reduce errata, which is unacceptable at just about any level, and 2) to ensure that what's released through the magazines harmonizes with R&D's long-range plans for the game.

Apart from the bit I highlighted (which is salient in response to Doom's question), this quote, from January 2011, reads like the PR spin they gave when they moved Dragon and Dungeon back in-house in 2007: 'we will give it greater quality control, same control we put into our print product.'

They've really lost all credibility in their handling of the magazines*, and the handling of their errata policy.

* In case an example is needed:

Quote from: Andy CollinsToday, we posted a new version of the Class Acts: Ranger article that originally appeared on July 13, 2009.

To put it bluntly, the previous version of the article was of unacceptable quality. You, the readers, correctly pointed that out and we agreed. Hence, these revisions.

We apologize for this lapse in quality.

Quote from: Drohem;439043OK, my post stating that I longed for the return of the days of CavScout

Yeah, Doom can be fucking annoying to the point of "WTF?!!!??" (and then, who am I to cast the first stone, right?) but CavScout was a douchebag on just about any level one could care about reading his posts. There's quite a gap in my mind.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;439009Please don't go apeshit.

Fuck that!  This is theRPGsite.  Apeshit is first gear!

Or is it batshit?  Hmmm...maybe batshit then apeshit.  

Quote from: Aos;439011Sadly, the new version of Firefox does not yet support FFVB.

I went on an O/S and browser discussion board once.  It was scary.

Quote from: Benoist;439048(and then, who am I to cast the first stone, right?)

You're French!  What's the point of inventing the trebuchet if not for casting the first stone?

Quote from: Seanchai;439018Those exact same things were discussed with 3e, 3.5, and I would imagine they're being discussed with Pathfinder.

It's not "MMOG culture" infiltrating tabletop gaming - what you're seeing is, first and foremost, the means to have these sorts of discussions and games where there are enough mechanical choices to make them worthwhile.

Seanchai

Nah, the GURPS and HERO boards certainly have enough build options to make intense rules discussions (and they do), but on the G/H boards you have people posing solutions and changes.  The MMOG atmosphere isn't there.  You're right though, it's not isolated to 4e, it began with 3e and certainly is also true of Pathfinder, however the online delivery of "patches" along with the RPGA focus on one set of rules exacerbates the both the MMOG culture elements and the "Cult of RAW" problem in 4e.

Quote from: Spinachcat;439053You're French!  What's the point of inventing the trebuchet if not for casting the first stone?

A trebuchet could always deliver pizza in a modern art manner.

Quote from: CRKrueger;439060Nah, the GURPS and HERO boards certainly have enough build options to make intense rules discussions (and they do), but on the G/H boards you have people posing solutions and changes.  The MMOG atmosphere isn't there.  You're right though, it's not isolated to 4e, it began with 3e and certainly is also true of Pathfinder, however the online delivery of "patches" along with the RPGA focus on one set of rules exacerbates the both the MMOG culture elements and the "Cult of RAW" problem in 4e.

I've actually got an upcoming post on the Alexandrian that talks about this. First, I recommend watching this video on choice and conflict in games: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2590-Choice-and-Conflict

And here's some stuff from my upcoming post:

Quote from: The AlexandrianThe other type of choice, and the one I'm most concerned with here, is the "incomparable". This is often found in character creation systems, where you have to choose between two options which cannot be directly compared with each other.

"The problem with many games," as the video says. "Is that they mask calculations as incomparables."

The example they point to is World of Warcraft, in which the talent trees of character advancement appear to contain a multitude of choices. But experienced players know that these talent trees conflate down to just a handful of "best builds". Why? Because virtually all of your choices on the talent tree are aimed at increasing your DPS or your healing output.

In other words, the "choices" on the talent trees are not fundamentally different. They are all ways of achieving one particular goal, and therefore there will almost certainly end up being one or two "best ways" to achieve that goal (calculation).

(...)

You see where I'm going with this, right?

When you focus the entirety of D&D on combat mechanics, you are simplifying the game down to a single goal. The effects of this are clear:

First, it creates a market for "best builds". More than that, when certain builds become sufficiently "best" they effectively break the game: You either play those builds or you're being outclassed by those who are playing those builds. (If you're supporting multiple goals, on the other hand, the problem is lessened: There may be a "best build for X", but since X isn't the totality of the game it doesn't invalidate other character builds. Which isn't to say that you need to toss concept balance out on its ear, but it does significantly reduce the pressure to turn everything into identical, bland pablum.)

Second, you can "fix the math" all you want in an effort to make all builds equal. It doesn't change the fact that you've eliminated meaningful choice from the core mechanics of your game. (It should go without saying, of course, that you can eliminate large swaths of meaningful choice while still leaving some choices intact.)

In short, you are reducing your game to a mere calculation.

The video basically makes the case that it's a mistake to have all of your objectives line up so that they can all be achieved without conflict between them. D&D4's designers worked very hard to have all the objectives in the game line-up so that nothing would get in the way of the nebulously defined "fun".

In the process, they may have inadvertently killed the fun.

For an example of a tabletop game that does a brilliant job of fostering conflict and, thus, forcing interesting choices to be made, consider Shock: Social Science Fiction: In this storytelling game you play both a protagonist and the antagonist for another player's protagonist. And the mechanics of the game almost force the antagonist's actions to create powerful choices.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;438950While this is true, there has been a pretty much indisputable trend line towards greater "RAW worship" from 1974 to today.

But, honestly, this is only because the rules have achieved a level of consistency which allows for that to happen.

Going back to the earliest days, for example, it's actually impossible to run a game "according to RAW" with the LBBs. The rules are contradictory, incomplete, and vague. And there are several occasions when they say to the DM, "Here are a couple of options. Pick one." There's not a unified game to be found in there.

AD&D1 is not that dissimilar, although "incomplete" is replaced by "sub-systems so convoluted and arcane that, as far as anyone has ever been able to tell, nobody has ever run a campaign using them (and that includes Gygax)". (The "nobody" is probably a hyperbole, but not by much.)

I completely agree with this.  The big reason no one's game of OD&D or AD&D was the same was because the rules were a jumbled mess that no one could interpret correctly; house rules and tinkering were far in the minority compared to "oh, we thought it meant..." or "yeah, we couldn't figure that rule out so we dropped it..."

Zeb Cook even explained the whole point of 2e was to fix the fact that no one agreed what RAW for AD&D was.  And once 2e came out, the RAW mentality was definately in full swing.

Quote from: Seanchai;439018Those exact same things were discussed with 3e, 3.5, and I would imagine they're being discussed with Pathfinder.

It's not "MMOG culture" infiltrating tabletop gaming - what you're seeing is, first and foremost, the means to have these sorts of discussions and games where there are enough mechanical choices to make them worthwhile.

That too.  In the old days, it was mostly confined to spells.  Note that there is a large chapter in the AD&D DMG that contains rules where Gary is clearly trying to tie up loopholes from people using RAW style gaming.

As I've said before, RAW is pretty much human nature, as people expect to follow rules when they play a game.  "Following the rules" is a large and fundamental component of societies as it is pretty much the defining principle of a social contract.

Quote from: jeff37923;439061A trebuchet could always deliver pizza in a modern art manner.

The faster I get that pizza, the better.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;439009After that, you decided to jump in with your little song and dance, and soon proceeded to jump down Doom's throat. You started it, dude....

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

I've provided quotes and links demonstrating conclusively that what you and Windjammer are claiming about me is factually wrong. Your response is, "Nuh-uh!" Not much else that can be said at that point.

Quote from: Benoist;439022I agree with the feeling. While I think you have the right of it, Justin, I think you need to breathe a little. Doom actually tried to calm things down with his last few posts, and you should follow the hint. Does you no good to keep on charging, especially considering you do have valid points in the first place.

Ideally he would admit he was wrong and apologize for his oafish behavior.

That's obviously unlikely to happen. He lacks the maturity to do it. But if he can stop posting stupid bullshit, I'll stop pointing out that it's stupid bullshit. He seems to be accomplishing that over the past few pages.

Quote from: StormBringer;439006Allow me one counter-argument, then, and I will offer no recriminations if you choose not to address it:
While not being recorded on the character sheet is not an absolute barrier to existing, most groups did have a pretty solid understanding this was the minimum requirement; ie, it has to be written down somewhere.

I think the line of "this needs to be recorded" can vary quite a bit between groups and between players. (For example, in me 3E campaign the PCs don't have hirelings, but they do have a variety of contacts and friends. Some of the players jot down notes about them; others don't.)

But there's also the question of where this information is to be recorded. To use the example from my original post, the character sheet Doom linked to doesn't include any place for spells to be written down. Does this mean that spells don't exist in my OD&D campaign? Of course not. They're recorded somewhere else.

Similarly, in the case of henchmen, there seem to be two protocols: One, the henchman's character sheet includes a note stating that they're a henchman belonging to such-and-such a character. Two, the henchman's character sheets lists the player of the PC they belong to as their player and we all just rely on memory to remember that Bill was hired by Sue (or whatever).

The only thing I've demanded as DM is that the player who the character sheet belongs to be clearly indicated so that I can quickly sort and pull them at the start of each session. (I've been holding onto everyone's character sheets. At the start of a typical session I'll pull all the PCs who have been played by a player and hand them over so that they can choose which character they want to play.)