3.x is not broken and should not be fixed

[Batcathat]

I notice you didn't asnwer my question.

You asked what my comment meant which is what I explained.

Do you object to people saying "sure it may be a little broken, but the DM can fix it, often in ways that make it more enjoyable than other game systems we've played"?

No, why would I object to that? I don't agree with it but it's a subjective opinion. I would disagree with anyone claiming it was anything more than a subjective opinion but that's more of a general opposition to people mixing up fact and opinion.

[Boci]

No, why would I object to that? I don't agree with it but it's a subjective opinion. I would disagree with anyone claiming it was anything more than a subjective opinion but that's more of a general opposition to people mixing up fact and opinion.

So why is it so important that people aknolwedge the game is broken before they're allowed to sit down and have fun it? Isn't how they have fun with the game system more important than whether or not they agree its broken, which is ultimatly just a word and probably doesn't matter that much?

[Batcathat]

So why is it so important that people aknolwedge the game is broken before they're allowed to sit down and have fun it? Isn't how they have fun with the game system more important than whether or not they agree its broken, which is ultimatly just a word and probably doesn't matter that much?

Sure. What gave you the impression that I felt it was important? I do think it's broken and argue in favor of that, I'm not forcing anyone to agree with me or even have an opinion on the matter.

[Boci]

Sure. What gave you the impression that I felt it was important? I do think it's broken and argue in favor of that, I'm not forcing anyone to agree with me or even have an opinion on the matter.

The fact that you specifically took the time to post a snarky analogy (and nothing else) in response to quite a long post about how the game can actually be enjoyed?

[Batcathat]

The fact that you specifically took the time to post a snarky analogy (and nothing else) in response to quite a long post about how the game can actually be enjoyed?

As I have already explained, I disagree with the fairly common argument "the GM can fix it so it doesn't matter". A snarky analogy isn't the most mature way of responding, granted, but it certainly doesn't make me some Grinch forcing people to agree the system is broken.

[thelastorphan]

I will reiterate that any comparison to a machine or limited object is flawed.

A game is not a machine.

It's a piece of media. How we engage with it influences what we take from it and a vast majority of interpretations are equally valid

[Florian]

I notice you didn't asnwer my question. Do you object to people saying "sure it may be a little broken, but the DM can fix it, often in ways that make it more enjoyable than other game systems we've played"?

Well, ok...

See, the reason to use a complex system is to play and have fun within the boundaries of said system and move away from "Mother many I?" as far as possible. It moves the GM from being "the rules" over to a position of being "arbiter of the rules".

[Boci]

Well, ok...

See, the reason to use a complex system is to play and have fun within the boundaries of said system and move away from "Mother many I?" as far as possible. It moves the GM from being "the rules" over to a position of being "arbiter of the rules".

Not sure what point you're trying to make here...

[lylsyly]

Well, ok...

See, the reason to use a complex system is to play and have fun within the boundaries of said system and move away from "Mother many I?" as far as possible. It moves the GM from being "the rules" over to a position of being "arbiter of the rules".

I've known I was the "arbiter of the rules", since January 1976 when I got OD&D for my 16th birthday.

[NigelWalmsley]

I will reiterate that any comparison to a machine or limited object is flawed.

Any comparison is flawed. That doesn't mean comparisons aren't useful. A game is a set of rules, intended for a purpose. That you can use it for some other purpose doesn't mean it succeeded or failed at the purpose for which it was designed (and this is true for machines too).

[thelastorphan]

It's an unfair comparison to make an analogy to a machine for something that is inherently social and unlike a machine in any meaningful way. It's also unlike a program in that there is not a social element at play in a program like Skyrim.

It's a piece of media much more like a movie or piece of literature.

The better analogy you make the better faith discussion can be had. So let's make comparisons that are more level at base.

That's my point.

I do like that twice you've ignored the second half of my statement though. Let's compare to things it's actually like. Rather than cramming into a box it surely doesnt fit.

[Azuresun]

Well, ok...

See, the reason to use a complex system is to play and have fun within the boundaries of said system and move away from "Mother many I?" as far as possible. It moves the GM from being "the rules" over to a position of being "arbiter of the rules".

That seems fundamentally misguided to me. You can't do much with a non-competitive group social activity that's designed to operate without trust.

[Florian]

That seems fundamentally misguided to me. You can't do much with a non-competitive group social activity that's designed to operate without trust.

*Shrugs*

We don´t have to agree with it, but one major design decision for 3E was the combination of "player empowerment", as well as shifting a lot of responsibility away from the GM and over to the rules system itself. IIRC, that had much to do with the amount of simply bad GMs in the AD&D era.

[Boci]

Any comparison is flawed. That doesn't mean comparisons aren't useful. A game is a set of rules, intended for a purpose. That you can use it for some other purpose doesn't mean it succeeded or failed at the purpose for which it was designed (and this is true for machines too).

A game's purpose for the creator(s) is to make money and often share their passion and ideas with others. A game's purpose for the consumer is to be fun. What "other purpose" do you imagine a game achieving in this comparison?