The Official "4e Critique and Rebuttal" Thread

[tzor]

Things that can be sold can be bought. Unless you are admitting that selling items consists of clicking on a vendor window, after which the item immediately disappears, never to be seen again? Because lol MMO vendors is the only alternative here. But you already knew this, given that you have very persistently ignored any and all counters, past and present to continue to defend a low quality tabletop MMO.

Obviously things that can be sold in D&D cannot always be bought. It is silly that this is the case but, hey, them's the rules. Right next to the ones that include people flying and gigantic monsters existing.

This must be a new rule, I'll call it the Darwinism rule: Magic exists therefore NOTHING NEEDS TO MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE.

I'll in turn invoke the Gygax rule, when people are dipshit idiots, a blue bolt of lightning comes from the sky and strikes them dead. In this case, it's called IGNORE. BYE BYE,

[Darwinism]

Things that can be sold can be bought. Unless you are admitting that selling items consists of clicking on a vendor window, after which the item immediately disappears, never to be seen again? Because lol MMO vendors is the only alternative here. But you already knew this, given that you have very persistently ignored any and all counters, past and present to continue to defend a low quality tabletop MMO.

Obviously things that can be sold in D&D cannot always be bought. It is silly that this is the case but, hey, them's the rules. Right next to the ones that include people flying and gigantic monsters existing.

This must be a new rule, I'll call it the Darwinism rule: Magic exists therefore NOTHING NEEDS TO MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE.

I'll in turn invoke the Gygax rule, when people are dipshit idiots, a blue bolt of lightning comes from the sky and strikes them dead. In this case, it's called IGNORE. BYE BYE,

No, it's the rule of balance; sometimes, for the sake of fun for a group of people, sacrifices are made. They're not always ideal and the designers admit that they're not ideal, but the rules stand to provide a better experience overall. Does it make perfect sense that a PC cannot buy what he can sell? Not in the slightest. But using logical fallacies like, "because I, personally, cannot buy this then obviously no one will ever be able to buy this, even though I can in fact sell this," is even sillier.

Also you handled that ignore with all the maturity and grace of a five-year-old sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling, "lalala I'm not listening," when confronted with an opinion he doesn't like.

edit: is the Gygax rule kinda like creating a dungeon by making a string of rooms filled with randomized monsters and save-or-die traps because I dunno that sounds more like the Gygax rule to me than punishing people you don't like simply because you have the power to do so; I'd rather attribute careless game design to the man instead of making him seem like a callous asshole who abuses his power for personal pleasure

[ScottS]

(pretty sure that "magic items can be sold but not bought, because only the PCs are 'stupid' enough to give them up" was a 1e rule as well; can't find a citation from the DMG at the moment though)

[Username17]

(pretty sure that "magic items can be sold but not bought, because only the PCs are 'stupid' enough to give them up" was a 1e rule as well; can't find a citation from the DMG at the moment though)

Sort of. AD&D gave magic items a gp value, but there was no magic item market in the default setting. Buying or selling a magic item involved going out and haggling for it with like roleplaying and reaction rolls and shit.

It's a completely different system.

-Username17

[Roy]

Things that can be sold can be bought. Unless you are admitting that selling items consists of clicking on a vendor window, after which the item immediately disappears, never to be seen again? Because lol MMO vendors is the only alternative here. But you already knew this, given that you have very persistently ignored any and all counters, past and present to continue to defend a low quality tabletop MMO.

Obviously things that can be sold in D&D cannot always be bought. It is silly that this is the case but, hey, them's the rules. Right next to the ones that include people flying and gigantic monsters existing.

Also I like your biiiiig stretch to make the 4E=MMO thing even though basically nothing unique to 4E resembles any MMO but it's a common put-down that doesn't even make sense when you consider that you're saying, "Pffff, I am going to attempt to insult this by comparing it to something that is much more successful in every way than it. I will maintain that this is an insult even though it's a compliment."

But, hey, please enumerate the ways that 4E is an MMO but make sure they're not things that other tabletops have because otherwise you'd just be silly!

Oh and you do know that MMOs are just an evolution of table top games right?

A stretch? Hardly. 4.Fail is a game about turning on auto attack, and pressing 1, 2, or 3 for more deeps. Unless they're greyed out of course, then you can't. And then you go and click on the green dot to sell your vendor trash, which immediately disappears never to be seen again, and you certainly cannot buy said items, ever, not even from the guy you just sold it to.

Yes, MMOs are more successful than 4.Fail. By far. This is mostly because MMO mechanics actually work on a computer, where it does math for you. On tabletop though? Completely defeats the point of tabletop, so it sells "hundreds of thousands" and not an actually good number. People play tabletop for things like creativity, options, meaningful choices. Not grinding on the mobs.

Of course you are a Mouth Breathing Fuckwit, so I do not expect you to understand this.

[RobbyPants]

Obviously things that can be sold in D&D cannot always be bought.

No. You see, by very definition, if someone sold something, then someone else had to have bought it. It's a fucking tautology. So, some dudes out there are totally buying these items if the PCs are selling them. The only reason the PCs can't buy stuff is, well... who fucking knows?

Ah, but you can sell items that you cannot buy. It's not very hard to understand. Now, why is this the case? Because the rules say so. But it is tautologically sound; simply because PCs are incapable of buying these objects does not automatically mean no one is capable.

But hey keep focusing on some stupid argument about why it's unrealistic to be able to sell but not buy that +4 Frost Teaspoon.

What if they want to play vendors? The whole thing seems like a bunch of stupid handwaving and arbitrary rules to keep players from making certain choices.

[Fuchs]

4E doesn't seem made for people who want to do somethign else but emulate WoW as a pen and paper RPG.

[talozin]

(pretty sure that "magic items can be sold but not bought, because only the PCs are 'stupid' enough to give them up" was a 1e rule as well; can't find a citation from the DMG at the moment though)

As with many parts of the game, 1e sort of handwaved the whole business. It was explicit that you were supposed to be able to sell magic items, since it was part of the XP rules that if you sold something immediately after finding it, you got the XP for the gold piece value of the sale, not the XP value assigned to the item. But in terms of how that actually happened, or whether you could buy stuff from other people for similar prices, the DMG was silent.

[Psychic Robot]

What if they want to play vendors? The whole thing seems like a bunch of stupid handwaving and arbitrary rules to keep players from making certain choices.

NO THE PCS ARE ADVENTURERS AND THEY MUST KILL THINGS IF THEY WANT TO PLAY VENDORS THEY CAN ROLL UP ANOTHER CHARACTER HURGLE BURGLE

Sidenote: In the last Pathfinder game I played, we were going to open up a Thai restaurant before everything collapsed into drama and failure.

[Roy]

Fail adventurers, they forgot the part about taking their stuff.

[JigokuBosatsu]

Sidenote: In the last Pathfinder game I played, we were going to open up a Thai restaurant before everything collapsed into drama and failure.

I like this and would like to hear more.

[Psychic Robot]

We never actually got to the opening of the restaurant, unfortunately. We had just acquired enough wealth that we could reasonably fund a restaurant (using the terrible rules from Castlebuilder's Guide or Keepbuilder's Compendium or whatever that book is called). Then one of the players graduated from college and returned to her hometown (two hours away), another player threw a tantrum and quit the game, and it was decided that we didn't feel like playing without the whole group there.

[Darwinism]

Things that can be sold can be bought. Unless you are admitting that selling items consists of clicking on a vendor window, after which the item immediately disappears, never to be seen again? Because lol MMO vendors is the only alternative here. But you already knew this, given that you have very persistently ignored any and all counters, past and present to continue to defend a low quality tabletop MMO.

Obviously things that can be sold in D&D cannot always be bought. It is silly that this is the case but, hey, them's the rules. Right next to the ones that include people flying and gigantic monsters existing.

Also I like your biiiiig stretch to make the 4E=MMO thing even though basically nothing unique to 4E resembles any MMO but it's a common put-down that doesn't even make sense when you consider that you're saying, "Pffff, I am going to attempt to insult this by comparing it to something that is much more successful in every way than it. I will maintain that this is an insult even though it's a compliment."

But, hey, please enumerate the ways that 4E is an MMO but make sure they're not things that other tabletops have because otherwise you'd just be silly!

Oh and you do know that MMOs are just an evolution of table top games right?

A stretch? Hardly. 4.Fail is a game about turning on auto attack, and pressing 1, 2, or 3 for more deeps. Unless they're greyed out of course, then you can't. And then you go and click on the green dot to sell your vendor trash, which immediately disappears never to be seen again, and you certainly cannot buy said items, ever, not even from the guy you just sold it to.

Yes, MMOs are more successful than 4.Fail. By far. This is mostly because MMO mechanics actually work on a computer, where it does math for you. On tabletop though? Completely defeats the point of tabletop, so it sells "hundreds of thousands" and not an actually good number. People play tabletop for things like creativity, options, meaningful choices. Not grinding on the mobs.

Of course you are a Mouth Breathing Fuckwit, so I do not expect you to understand this.

Ohhh, so it's like turning on autoattack and casting spells (unless they're greyed out!) or using your Barbarian rage (unless it's greyed out!) or shapeshifting as a druid (unless it's greyed out!), man I'm glad none of those mechanics existed in earlier editions. Then your entire point would've fallen apart. Also, the whole selling uncommons but not being able to buy them? Yeah, it's already been noted to have existed in previous editions that were around before MMOs. Oops!

And what is the point of your second paragraph? Yeah, MMOs do the math for you.... and? Is there a point there? Because 4E uses literally the same D20 system as 3E, which was just a streamlined version of the D20 system used in 2E. Oh and people play tabletop games for any reason at all, and trying to imply that 4E doesn't have room for intangibles like creativity, options, and meaningful choices just cements your place in idiocy. These are things that depend on the people around the books, not the books themselves; I've played with some very enjoyable, creative players who made unique characters. And I've played with people who made Stereotype Darkcloaksitsincorner, and that's been true for every tabletop I've played.

Also I like your random capitalization. Please, tell me more about how I'm the fuckwit while you mangle grammar.

Oh and by the way 4E has sold extremely well for a tabletop; it hit the WSJ bestseller's list in an economy unfavorable to any sort of discretionary spending. It's impossible to get solid sales numbers for any edition, so far as I can tell, but trying to claim 4E is a failure is nothing but ignorance. Oh and here's some anecdotal evidence; at GenghisCon there were, oh, four or five times as many 4E D&D tables as any other tabletop. Probably more. I guess Denver must be an aberration.

edit: oh and I was just reminded that your silly fail catchphrase really is endemic to MMOs, it makes one wonder...

[Doom]

Ohhh, so it's like turning on autoattack and casting spells (unless they're greyed out!) or using your Barbarian rage (unless it's greyed out!) or shapeshifting as a druid (unless it's greyed out!), man I'm glad none of those mechanics existed in earlier editions.

But this rebuttal, namely the "one book somewhere in a previous edition had something that resembles something in 4e so it's all the same" rebuttal has already been covered somewhere. It's bogus because just about everything has appeared somewhere, and even if it was used sometimes, that's not in itself justification for it becoming something to use all the time.

I know you're not going to read why your particular examples are bad, but to summarize, if I recall correctly, it goes like this.

Barbarians can only Rage a certain number of times a day because, well, it's exhausting, and they do need to rest. This makes sense to human beings based on what we've seen with temper tantrums and the like (namely, they're not really sustainable for indefinite periods, and you generally don't see someone doing them a great number of times per day).

On the other hand, Burning Scrotum Punch can be used a great number of times per day, as long as you take short rests. Ok, maybe it's a little bit tiring or something, but you've got a jillion other abilities that work the exact same way and are, apparently, tiring in the exact same way...even though they all do different things and 'tiring' doesn't even come close to making sense for many of them (eg, getting a +4 charisma bonus 1/encounter).

Also, it's easier to swallow some 'times a day' thing that makes some sort of sense based on how the world works, as opposed to some "every few arbitrarily defined spacing of minutes, with the arbitrary definition changing at arbitrary intervals" method that is used for Encounter powers.

Heck, at least in WoW abilities ARE on timers, so there's at least some sort of consistency.

[Darwinism]

Ohhh, so it's like turning on autoattack and casting spells (unless they're greyed out!) or using your Barbarian rage (unless it's greyed out!) or shapeshifting as a druid (unless it's greyed out!), man I'm glad none of those mechanics existed in earlier editions.

But this rebuttal, namely the "one book somewhere in a previous edition had something that resembles something in 4e so it's all the same" rebuttal has already been covered somewhere. It's bogus because just about everything has appeared somewhere, and even if it was used sometimes, that's not in itself justification for it becoming something to use all the time.

I know you're not going to read why your particular examples are bad, but to summarize, if I recall correctly, it goes like this.

Barbarians can only Rage a certain number of times a day because, well, it's exhausting, and they do need to rest. This makes sense to human beings based on what we've seen with temper tantrums and the like (namely, they're not really sustainable for indefinite periods, and you generally don't see someone doing them a great number of times per day).

On the other hand, Burning Scrotum Punch can be used a great number of times per day, as long as you take short rests. Ok, maybe it's a little bit tiring or something, but you've got a jillion other abilities that work the exact same way and are, apparently, tiring in the exact same way...even though they all do different things and 'tiring' doesn't even come close to making sense for many of them (eg, getting a +4 charisma bonus 1/encounter).

Also, it's easier to swallow some 'times a day' thing that makes some sort of sense based on how the world works, as opposed to some "every few arbitrarily defined spacing of minutes, with the arbitrary definition changing at arbitrary intervals" method that is used for Encounter powers.

Heck, at least in WoW abilities ARE on timers, so there's at least some sort of consistency.

Why do they have to involve physical effort? You're apparently stating that it doesn't make sense but you're only considering one very limited viewpoint as to why these powers cannot be simply chained together. A better way to imagine them is that they aren't always immensely physically draining, they are merely a set of circumstances coming together in the player's favor to allow him to pull off a move that, otherwise, might get his legs chopped off. In the case of martial characters, at least. For magical characters no one seems to have the issue with limited powers because that's the way it's always been; magic is accepted to be draining in some sense and well of course it makes perfect sense that Joe Magicthrower can just catch his breath and go back to tossing magic around.

Also how does, "times a day," work any better than... times a day, since your example directly compares them, as far as how the world works? And, really, D&D has never had anything but a passing acquaintance with anything resembling the real world, even in physical combat, but man people really bitch about the power template an inordinate amount. Blah blah all powers are the same even though they only share a template, blah blah martial characters shouldn't have powers damn jocks let me out of the locker, blah blah.

Encounter and daily powers are a way of giving narrative control to the players; they can be imagined as working any way you want to imagine them as working, because the actual mechanics as to why are less important than giving players fun things to do. This is the greatest success of 4E; every character will have a list of fun things to do that don't necessarily even have a passing resemblance to what might happen in the real world. This isn't bad. Just read a fantasy novel or watch Conan or Red Sonja or such and then say, "hey that is really cool I'd much rather play a game that is similar to these universes rather than the real world where I'd have to have my helmet hammered off by a blacksmith after catching a blow to the noggin."

Realism is not a lofty goal, or any goal at all, in most tabletops, because realism is boring. We live in a realistic place. It's not all that fun a lot of the times. This isn't to say that all appearances of realism should be thrown to the wind but when you start bitching about the equivalent of, "but but how does Conan punch a camel out that's not realistic at all," you're missing the point of playing a game.

Also, the reason I used that rebuttal is because the person I was responding to was asked to come up with an example that is unique to 4E that makes it like an MMO. He used an example that was not, so I used examples from prior editions to show that this is nothing unique to this particular edition. So really your entire post was an exercise in not getting the point and trying to make it seem like I was defending 4E by saying, "but they did it," when actually I was attacking his point. But, hey, accuse me of not reading things when you've just proven that you don't read things!

[MGuy]

Darwin... Your request for examples is completely stupid. You're asking for some sort of thing "unique" to 4Ethough 4E has a lot of repeats of previous "problems" that shouldn't have been repeated in the first place.

Now I don't like 4E but the only thing that rings loud and clear that makes 4E into an MMO wannabe (above all the other issues I had with it when I tried to play it) and indeed the thing that stopped me from playing it in the end is that Powers don't work out of combat. They do not interact with the world in any meaningful way beyond playing "Mother may I?" with your MC.

4E otherwise has boring combat, unbalanced classes (I found this out before it was even discussed here because I played a Paladin in a group of people that included a ranger, druid, and martial), crappy Skill Challenge system (again personal experience before the discussion here was even started over it), how Forgotten Realms was made much much worse by the upgrade, and I could go on.

I could even give my own personal complaints about why these are issues and how it plays out in game play. But at the end of the day I don't care about these issues. What I do care about, the thing that sets my nerd panties on fire, is the fact that I can't light my goddamn campfire with my blazing strike and that's complete and utter MMO bullshit, the kind I've only had the displeasure of experiencing in 4E.

[Doom]

Realism is not a lofty goal, or any goal at all, in most tabletops,

Interesting assertion. Maybe not a primary goal, perhaps, but I've yet to play DFLKJ VNi, or any other game so far removed from reality that I cannot even phonetically spell its name yet.

Also, the reason I used that rebuttal is because the person I was responding to was asked to ... "but they did it," when actually I was attacking his point.

Your reason for using the long since invalidated rebuttal is irrelevant. The fact that you think "attacking his point" makes an invalidated rebuttal in some way more valid is my laugh of the day.

To make it even more simple: Asserting that 4e has the same flaws as an older game does NOT dispute the flaws. At best, you're simply saying that 4e is repeating the mistakes of the past...so not a good rebuttal.

[Roy]

Obviously things that can be sold in D&D cannot always be bought. It is silly that this is the case but, hey, them's the rules. Right next to the ones that include people flying and gigantic monsters existing.

Also I like your biiiiig stretch to make the 4E=MMO thing even though basically nothing unique to 4E resembles any MMO but it's a common put-down that doesn't even make sense when you consider that you're saying, "Pffff, I am going to attempt to insult this by comparing it to something that is much more successful in every way than it. I will maintain that this is an insult even though it's a compliment."

But, hey, please enumerate the ways that 4E is an MMO but make sure they're not things that other tabletops have because otherwise you'd just be silly!

Oh and you do know that MMOs are just an evolution of table top games right?

A stretch? Hardly. 4.Fail is a game about turning on auto attack, and pressing 1, 2, or 3 for more deeps. Unless they're greyed out of course, then you can't. And then you go and click on the green dot to sell your vendor trash, which immediately disappears never to be seen again, and you certainly cannot buy said items, ever, not even from the guy you just sold it to.

Yes, MMOs are more successful than 4.Fail. By far. This is mostly because MMO mechanics actually work on a computer, where it does math for you. On tabletop though? Completely defeats the point of tabletop, so it sells "hundreds of thousands" and not an actually good number. People play tabletop for things like creativity, options, meaningful choices. Not grinding on the mobs.

Of course you are a Mouth Breathing Fuckwit, so I do not expect you to understand this.

Ohhh, so it's like turning on autoattack and casting spells (unless they're greyed out!) or using your Barbarian rage (unless it's greyed out!) or shapeshifting as a druid (unless it's greyed out!), man I'm glad none of those mechanics existed in earlier editions. Then your entire point would've fallen apart. Also, the whole selling uncommons but not being able to buy them? Yeah, it's already been noted to have existed in previous editions that were around before MMOs. Oops!

Lol, no. Fail.

And what is the point of your second paragraph? Yeah, MMOs do the math for you.... and? Is there a point there? Because 4E uses literally the same D20 system as 3E, which was just a streamlined version of the D20 system used in 2E. Oh and people play tabletop games for any reason at all, and trying to imply that 4E doesn't have room for intangibles like creativity, options, and meaningful choices just cements your place in idiocy. These are things that depend on the people around the books, not the books themselves; I've played with some very enjoyable, creative players who made unique characters. And I've played with people who made Stereotype Darkcloaksitsincorner, and that's been true for every tabletop I've played.

And, if you're going to play a game all about grinding on the MOB, then an MMO, which does the math for you and leads to combat resolution time measured in minutes, rather than hours is infinitely superior. Also, using the same dice does not mean the same system, just as a Tandy and a modern computer are only distantly related.

There's no room for creativity because everything is jammed into a narrow box. Options and choices, same thing.

Also I like your random capitalization. Please, tell me more about how I'm the fuckwit while you mangle grammar.

It is proper grammar to capitalize the first letter of every word, except words like of, the, etc when writing the name of a title. Mouth Breathing Fuckwit is indeed correct usage.

Here is incorrect usage of grammar:

Hi Welcome

Oh and by the way 4E has sold extremely well for a tabletop; it hit the WSJ bestseller's list in an economy unfavorable to any sort of discretionary spending. It's impossible to get solid sales numbers for any edition, so far as I can tell, but trying to claim 4E is a failure is nothing but ignorance. Oh and here's some anecdotal evidence; at GenghisCon there were, oh, four or five times as many 4E D&D tables as any other tabletop. Probably more. I guess Denver must be an aberration.

"Hundreds of thousands". Your argument is invalid. Additionally in a recession, most spending goes down, but spending on cheap things goes UP. Tabletop games, being a less expensive form of entertainment than say... going out to the movies or whatever are things that do BETTER in recessions. So you don't get to be a 4rry and hide behind that. Also, in various other places, funny thing. Even late into the 4.Fail lifecycle, it not only gets beat out by games like MOUSEGUARD in popularity, but 3.5 games outnumber it at least 2:1, sometimes 3:1.

For example.

# (9) DnD3.5e
# (5) DnD4e
# (4) GURPS
# (4) PFRPG
# (2) D20Modern
# (2) DarkHeresy
# (2) DnD2e
# (2) Misc
# (2) SW Saga
# (2) WoD
# (1) CoC
# (1) D20Future
# (1) Homebrew
# (1) MnM
# (1) Serenity

edit: oh and I was just reminded that your silly fail catchphrase really is endemic to MMOs, it makes one wonder...

Fail is common on the Internet, not specifically on MMOs, though they are of course on the Internet. Would you prefer completely worthless, or perhaps some other term? Fail is simply the shortest way to communicate that idea.

[FatR]

Realism is not a lofty goal, or any goal at all, in most tabletops, because realism is boring.

I know I'm being trolled, but fuck this stawman. When we say, that 4E doesn't make an ounce of sense, we're not arguing for "realism", we're arguing for verisimilitude. You know, stuff like internal consistency, believability and system actually interfacing with the world. Which is totally a goal in any game that does not slave itself to a narrow genre. Although internal consistency is a goal even then. Because people actually like to have, you known, causality in their games. Or, if this word is too smart for you, to have the ability to predict possible effects of their actions. And not only when the combat music plays.

Also, every author with two brain cells to rub together (I know, this excludes most of 4E crew) undertand that if they are going to openly ask for WSOD from their audience, they better have damn good reasons for that. And "we can't write a loot system that is not stupid" doesn't count as one.

[JigokuBosatsu]

we're not arguing for "realism", we're arguing for verisimilitude.

Man, I think we should argue for this in every medium!

[Darwinism]

Realism is not a lofty goal, or any goal at all, in most tabletops, because realism is boring.

I know I'm being trolled, but fuck this stawman. When we say, that 4E doesn't make an ounce of sense, we're not arguing for "realism", we're arguing for verisimilitude. You know, stuff like internal consistency, believability and system actually interfacing with the world. Which is totally a goal in any game that does not slave itself to a narrow genre. Although internal consistency is a goal even then. Because people actually like to have, you known, causality in their games. Or, if this word is too smart for you, to have the ability to predict possible effects of their actions. And not only when the combat music plays.

Also, every author with two brain cells to rub together (I know, this excludes most of 4E crew) undertand that if they are going to openly ask for WSOD from their audience, they better have damn good reasons for that. And "we can't write a loot system that is not stupid" doesn't count as one.

verisimilitude
[ver-uh-si-mil-i-tood, -tyood]
–noun
1.
the appearance or semblance of truth; likelihood; probability: The play lacked verisimilitude.
2.
something, as an assertion, having merely the appearance of truth.

None of that directly indicates internal consistency, which 4E has, or interacting with the world, which 4E again has. And how does 4E not have the semblance of truth? It works and draws largely on works of fiction for inspirations behind the powers players use. Why does it all of a sudden become unbelievable when you don't like the system it's a part of?

Also, I know you like to claim that causality is negated, somehow, but that claim has no basis in any sort of reality and is just the sort of strawman you're claiming that I have made. Also verisimilitude is completely subjective; I, personally, find that 4E is perfectly believable for a fantasy setting that includes heroic characters. If you don't that's perfectly fine but it starts being really stupid when you try to claim that 4E has objectively no verisimilitude.

Oh and:

causality   
[kaw-zal-i-tee]
–noun, plural -ties.
1.
the relation of cause and effect: The result is the same, however differently the causality is interpreted.
2.
causal quality or agency.

Seriously do you just apply random definitions to actual words and roll with them because your actions (the cause) have effects (the effect) in the game world both in and out of combat. I mean come on at least try to stick to actual definitions here.

To make it even more simple: Asserting that 4e has the same flaws as an older game does NOT dispute the flaws. At best, you're simply saying that 4e is repeating the mistakes of the past...so not a good rebuttal.

How are you this dumb and still breathing? It wasn't a point on 4E's merits or flaws; it was a point negating the validity of his argument. But you just want it to fit into the box of, "well since you made this statement you must be trying to use it to validate your opinion of 4E even though you've already explicitly stated that was not the goal and acknowledged that, 'he did it first,' is not an argument for a system."

Let's go over this again; the comparison between 4E and other systems was to disprove that 4E is inherently more MMO-like, because other systems have used very similar systems but that is always ignored because claiming that 4E is MMO-like is some bizzaro-insult favored by idiots.

Now I don't like 4E but the only thing that rings loud and clear that makes 4E into an MMO wannabe (above all the other issues I had with it when I tried to play it) and indeed the thing that stopped me from playing it in the end is that Powers don't work out of combat. They do not interact with the world in any meaningful way beyond playing "Mother may I?" with your MC.

Just gonna focus on this because.... what? Powers work fine outside of combat. Christ, there are powers specifically focused on out of combat uses and many powers, like those including teleportation or flying, have tons of uses outside of combat. If you're not interacting with the world that's not the game's fault at all. It's either you believing you can't or your GM not actually moderating the game by the rules.

[Doom]

the comparison between 4E and other systems was to disprove that 4E is inherently more MMO-like

your Barbarian rage (unless it's greyed out!) or shapeshifting as a druid (unless it's greyed out!),

Which MMO were you referring to that has Barbarian that rage and Druids that shapeshift?

...man I'm glad none of those mechanics existed in earlier editions.

And what edition of the MMO would that be? Can you name it, please?

[Darwinism]

And, if you're going to play a game all about grinding on the MOB, then an MMO, which does the math for you and leads to combat resolution time measured in minutes, rather than hours is infinitely superior. Also, using the same dice does not mean the same system, just as a Tandy and a modern computer are only distantly related.

Hey if all you expect from a tabletop is killing monsters then of course that's all the game is going to be about to you. Personally I like to roleplay in between and during killing monsters and have a few skill checks to see if I influenced some out of combat mechanic in the party's favor but hey that's just me.

Oh and they are literally the same system, I am sorry to break your heart. It's like comparing a laptop to a PC and saying they aren't the same thing. Both 4E and 3E are based around rolling a D20, adding bonuses, and checking to see if your roll+bonuses surpasses the target number. Some cosmetic differences have occured, like treating saving throws as offensive rolls against a target number rather than defensive rolls against a target number, but it's cosmetic at the most. The biggest change is the template assigned to powers but I'd have to say it's a good thing that only helps people who are just starting and further helps people who are used to the system by making sure all powers are presented in the same manner.

There's no room for creativity because everything is jammed into a narrow box. Options and choices, same thing.

Oh well then I guess I'll have to stop being creative with my character concepts and I'll have to start ignoring the plethora of different power choices for any given class because you have proved that there is no room for creativity or choices by... oh shit you didn't prove anything you just stated a retarded opinion. Guess I'll go back to having fun!

"Hundreds of thousands". Your argument is invalid. Additionally in a recession, most spending goes down, but spending on cheap things goes UP. Tabletop games, being a less expensive form of entertainment than say... going out to the movies or whatever are things that do BETTER in recessions. So you don't get to be a 4rry and hide behind that. Also, in various other places, funny thing. Even late into the 4.Fail lifecycle, it not only gets beat out by games like MOUSEGUARD in popularity, but 3.5 games outnumber it at least 2:1, sometimes 3:1.

I know you may think that you understand economics but when a demand curve shifts like it does in a recession it means that less money is available overall. It is possible, though I've seen no evidence supporting this and plenty of evidence denying it (see White Wolf being bought by CCP), that people may spend more on long-term investments like tabletop games but hey feel free to provide any sort of figures supporting your claim that people spend more money on games in a recession than they do during normal economic times.

the comparison between 4E and other systems was to disprove that 4E is inherently more MMO-like

your Barbarian rage (unless it's greyed out!) or shapeshifting as a druid (unless it's greyed out!),

Which MMO were you referring to that has Barbarian that rage and Druids that shapeshift?

Any mmo with barbarians or druids would fit the bill! But I guess you're still trying to prove your stupid point. Which is adorable.

[quanta]

I know I'm being trolled, but fuck this stawman. When we say, that 4E doesn't make an ounce of sense, we're not arguing for "realism", we're arguing for verisimilitude. You know, stuff like internal consistency, believability and system actually interfacing with the world. Which is totally a goal in any game that does not slave itself to a narrow genre. Although internal consistency is a goal even then. Because people actually like to have, you known, causality in their games. Or, if this word is too smart for you, to have the ability to predict possible effects of their actions. And not only when the combat music plays.

Honestly, fuck verisimilitude as a general design goal. If I apply any significant scrutiny to pretty much any D&D type fantasy ever, shit falls apart. It just isn't coherent. Not even vaguely. To think otherwise you either reverse engineer the mechanics to see what that implies about world design and then houserule away all the nonworking shit (Tome) or just outright deceive yourself. It's perfectly valid to design a game's mechanics to provide a certain type of dramatic tension or narrative flow rather than world consistency (not that D&D does this). But I wouldn't call that verisimilitude. It's also fine for a game to have mechanics that are highly abstracted or somewhat vague (i.e. you couldn't really program those rules easily) and are basically there just to balance the game or make it more playable without having to waste time on rules few players will read and follow anyways. It's also fine to shoot for world consistency or verisimilitude, but not every RPG has to have it.

But honestly, it's not surprising people equate verisimilitude with being realistic anyways. I don't think what you mean really matches any of these definitions (which makes me suspect you don't really mean verisimilitude). http://www.google.com/search?sclient=ps ... &oq=&pbx=1

You'll note the denotation of the word is pretty close to "realistic" or "believable because it seems real". Whereas you're more talking about "believable because it seems coherent" or "believable because it has a superficial logical consistency".

[Lago PARANOIA]

It's also fine for a game to have mechanics that are highly abstracted or somewhat vague (i.e. you couldn't really program those rules easily) and are basically there just to balance the game or make it more playable without having to waste time on rules few players will read and follow anyways.

In theory, yes, but I've seen so many people use this as a false dichotomy when it's possible to have both at once that I'm instantly skeptical of anyone who implements a not-making-sense mechanic in the name of gameplay. When it comes to TTRPGs, 4 times out of 5 it wasn't a real 'sacrifice consistency in the name of fun' at all decision, they just used it as an excuse when they couldn't think of a way to have both.

Classic example in this thread: The Health/Damage Asymmetry. People not only here but elsewhere tell me that yes, it doesn't make any internal sense but you have to have it so that you could have healing while also not having combats devolve into rocket launcher tag. This ignores the fact that PCs don't NEED huge damage bonuses that monsters don't get (or healing for that matter, but that's another story) and that if you reduced those the HDA needn't have been so intense. You could have PC/NPC health transparency while ALSO not having rocket launcher tag and their deciding to have HDA anyway is just lazy design.