People involved in the killing of true D&D got a lot of nerve showing their face around here.
** spoiler omitted **
Why? This is the perfect place to do penance.
I'm not sure why it is such an insult to say that PF is not 3.5.Why does saying PF IS 3.5 cause you to "grind teeth in forced smile"? If it's not an insult to say it is not 3.5, is it an insult to say it is?
Because he's a bitter little gnome.
I see you haven't met some of my friends. ::Makes a summoning circle out of Bella Sara cards::You're going to summon a whore of a cute, cuddly multi-hued pony?
I may now answer, Yes.
There are other kinds?Because he's a bitter little gnome.I'm not sure why it is such an insult to say that PF is not 3.5.Why does saying PF IS 3.5 cause you to "grind teeth in forced smile"? If it's not an insult to say it is not 3.5, is it an insult to say it is?
Read your game books, man: The Unbleached Kind.
I may now answer, Yes.I see you haven't met some of my friends. ::Makes a summoning circle out of Bella Sara cards::You're going to summon a whore of a cute, cuddly multi-hued pony?NO, n...n..n... not HIM!?
;-P
Lord Inglip?
Why? This is the perfect place to do penance.People involved in the killing of true D&D got a lot of nerve showing their face around here.
** spoiler omitted **
I agree! :-)
You people are gonna be sorry as soon as I get this summoning thing to work. Except for SRM: people who agree with me can't possibly be sorry.
I'm already sorry.
Attention people!
The nice leafy green man, Mairkurion, is attempting to summon the only thing nearly as pretty as the goddess in existence - Sebastian's dwarven lawyer.
This is an important endeavour.
We need to all join hands, light candles, and sing hymns of praise to Lamashtu to aid Mairkurion in his work.
That's right. Send Sebastian your love, so that he'll send his lawyer to speak to us.
And, ummm, there'll be a creche out the back for mothers and children. Don't believe any lies that naughty folks spread about the church of the goddess. Or about Sebastian or anyone willing to be Sebastian's lawyer.
Some of us are SO misunderstood.
Or about Sebastian or anyone willing to be Sebastian's lawyer.
Goodness knows, the billable hours are quite the prize.
I'm not sure why it is such an insult to say that PF is not 3.5.Why does saying PF IS 3.5 cause you to "grind teeth in forced smile"? If it's not an insult to say it is not 3.5, is it an insult to say it is?
No it is not an insult, but it is inaccurate.
If I say I'm going to give you a ride home, so meet me by my car at 5 PM. It is green. You are waiting by the only green car in the lot when I walk out at 5 and walk over to a blue car and ask, "Why are you over there, my green car is right here." You'd think I was at the very least silly. Now maybe I'm color blind and someone told me my car was green when it was really blue. But if I actually know better, why would I intentionally tell somebody something that is not the most accurate? I just don't get it.
It is not insulting it just doesn't make sense.
The teeth grinding comes from having to still point it out after 2 years and having people like yourself who know better continue to say, it is the same thing though. It is not, and that is ok, in fact in many cases it is better than ok. It is great that PF is so successful it doesn't have to claim to be 3.5.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Pres man, there are some people who, when think confusing D&D 3.5 with Pathfinder is like confusing blue with green. There are other people who think it's like confusing silver with gray.
There is a distinction, but compared to, say, GURPS, AD&D 2nd Edition, Warriors & Warlocks, or other games on the market, the differences appear quite small. Intentionally so.
I think I have to side with the folks who take it as a bit of an insultNo. You don't.
It was a cute commercial showing D&D changing in each era with a funny stereotype about the era itself in each one, showcasing that one of the main things D&D has done is change while keeping the same heart.
It was not in any way insulting.
Something can be insulting to a great many people even if you didn't intend for it to be insulting.
But don't dismiss people as being full of badwrongthink because they were in fact insulted when you were not.
For what it's worth, I wasn't insulted per se, I just thought it was poorly put together in the 'my God do they not realize how that's going to be viewed by many of the people they're trying to market their new game to?'.
I think I have to side with the folks who take it as a bit of an insultNo. You don't.
It was a cute commercial showing D&D changing in each era with a funny stereotype about the era itself in each one, showcasing that one of the main things D&D has done is change while keeping the same heart.
It was not in any way insulting.
Something can be insulting to a great many people even if you didn't intend for it to be insulting.
But don't dismiss people as being full of badwrongthink because they were in fact insulted when you were not.
For what it's worth, I wasn't insulted per se, I just thought it was poorly put together in the 'my God do they not realize how that's going to be viewed by many of the people they're trying to market their new game to?'.
"I find that insulting" is different from "That is insulting."
I can and will dismiss people when they very dramatically overreact to something - especially when often times it's done for the high theater that is the internet.
Good Lord.
DISMISSED!
"I find that insulting" is different from "That is insulting."
If someone finds something to be insulting, then as far as they are concerned it is insulting. There is no distinction to the person who feels insulted.
You personally may not agree with them, but that doesn't change how they feel, or make them wrong to feel as they do.
"I find that insulting" is different from "That is insulting."
I can and will dismiss people when they very dramatically overreact to something - especially when often times it's done for the high theater that is the internet.
Settles back to watch high theatre.
"I find that insulting" is different from "That is insulting."If someone finds something to be insulting, then as far as they are concerned it is insulting. There is no distinction to the person who feels insulted.
You personally may not agree with them, but that doesn't change how they feel, or make them wrong to feel as they do.
People are free to say "I find that insulting."
Saying something is universally insulting is something else.
In many cases, people were insulted by the video due to preconceived notions rather then the commercial actually being insulting.
Pres man, there are some people who, when think confusing D&D 3.5 with Pathfinder is like confusing blue with green. There are other people who think it's like confusing silver with gray.
There is a distinction, but compared to, say, GURPS, AD&D 2nd Edition, Warriors & Warlocks, or other games on the market, the differences appear quite small. Intentionally so.
Oh I get that, I intentionally picked blue and green because they are in fact quite close to one another, at least compared to how close either is to red. (ROYGBIV)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I think I have to side with the folks who take it as a bit of an insultNo. You don't.
I suppose you are technically correct; I said "I think I have to side with the folks who take it as a bit of an insult..."
Clearly, I don't HAVE TO side with them. It's not a requirement or a compulsion.
It just so happens that I DO side with them, even though you are correct that I don't HAVE TO.
It was a cute commercialLots of people, especially those that grew up in northern Ohio, think [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Wahoo]Chief Wahoo
is a cute logo, funny and harmless. Others don't.
showing D&D changing in each era with a funny stereotype about the era itself in each one, showcasing that one of the main things D&D has done is change while keeping the same heart.
It was not in any way insulting.
To you. Which is fine.
Unless that's what you brought into it.
To those not offended by a thing, those that are offended will often seem thin-skinned, hypersensitive, or looking for a fight.
To those offended by a thing, those that are not will often seem obtuse, insensitive, callous, or unwilling to take a stand about anything.
Such is the way of the world.
Again, the entire commercial was tongue in cheek aimed at themselves. Mearls runs a weekly AD&D game for crying out loud, he was the target of the joke.
Incorrect. He was *A* target of *A* joke contained within the ad.
If the designers were the sole target of the joke, they would have made it only for their own consumption and passed it around the office and had a good chuckle.
Instead, they created a representation of the game through the years. The clothes and hair were a parody. For some, the game bits were pure parody as well.
To others, they were intentional framing of the game experience in previous editions as being tedious, confusing, and obscure, a point which is reinforced by the narration at the beginning which explicitly makes that point. "It's the same game, and we had fun, but look at all these things that were actually lame about it."
My offense, mild as it was, was not at the characterization of the rules themselves. Whatever. It was at the characterization of D&D players being dummies... and rude dummies, for that matter IMO.
You found it harmlessly amusing. Me, not so much. Auf Deutsch: man lebt.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
"I find that insulting" is different from "That is insulting."
I can and will dismiss people when they very dramatically overreact to something - especially when often times it's done for the high theater that is the internet.
Hmm... dramatically overreact. Ironic choice of words.
The exact quotation you characterized as a dramatic overreaction was:
I think I have to side with the folks who take it as a bit of an insult
The above sentence has no less than five separate qualifiers to the essential text.
1. "I think... " instead of leaving the phrase out entirely, since it's superfluous other than as a modifying qualifier.
2. "I have to side with..." instead of "I side with."
3. "folks" instead of identifying specific individuals, or leaving this reference out entirely since it is conceptually displacing any offense into the undifferentiated group called "folks" rather than it being a belief strongly held by the stating person.
4. "who take it as," which literally states that they are giving an interpretation, rather than an unqualified statement of judgment, such as "who are... insulted"
5. "a bit of an insult" instead of "an insult."
An unqualified statement would have been: "I am insulted by... "
Overreaction? Maybe to some. Dramatic? Hardly.
The *ACTUAL* statement to which you responded? Which, to remind you, is:
I think I have to side with the folks who take it as a bit of an insult
It has *FIVE LAYERS OF QUALIFICATION* to its basic meaning. It almost could not be more bland or wishy-washy in its vague implication of offense.
Contrariwise, you have said:
"I find that insulting" is different from "That is insulting."
Some could debate the point, but it's rhetorically true; one is phrased as a personal judgment, the other as a universalized judgment.
People are free to say "I find that insulting."
Apparently they aren't, since that is precisely what I *DID* say: "to take it as a bit of an insult" is, in fact, an even softer phrasing with the same meaning as "to find it insulting," since it's explicitly characterized as being only a bit of an insult, not even a full insult.
Even so, you evidently felt compelled to... hmmm... what's the phrase I'm looking for...
I can and will dismiss people when they very to something - especially when often times it's done for the high theater that is the internet.
... ah, that is a good one.
You felt the need to dramatically overreact, apparently in violation of your own principle, which is, as you state it:
People are free to say "I find that insulting."
Which I did.
(For that matter, in an even milder and less insulted phraseology than the one you say people are free to say.)
Saying something is universally insulting is something else.
Which I didn't.
In many cases, people were insulted by the video due to preconceived notions rather then the commercial actually being insulting.
I can't speak for other cases, nor are they relevant to the conversation, since in this case you were not responding to others but were responding to me. The only dramatic overreaction here was yours. Whether it counts as high theater of the internet is up to the viewing public to decide.
|
Pres man, there are some people who, when think confusing D&D 3.5 with Pathfinder is like confusing blue with green.
I'm blue-green colorblind and take unreasonable umbrage at this metaphor for mocking my disability!
Oh. I feel faint. I must lie down.
Hurry up and summon the pony, I must sue for emotional cruelty and unspecified damages in the six-figure range!
|
The teeth grinding comes from having to still point it out after 2 years and having people like yourself who know better continue to say, it is the same thing though. It is not, and that is ok, in fact in many cases it is better than ok. It is great that PF is so successful it doesn't have to claim to be 3.5.
It doesn't have to claim it, but it IS houseruled 3.5. It's not a matter of blue and green, it's lime green and olive green. They're both still green.
It's no less 3.5 than Gauric Myths or any other set of houserules. Heck, even the Tomes and 4E are just 3.5 houserules at heart.
Saying Pathfinder is its own game is inaccurate.
No, opinions are neither right nor wrong. They are opinions. Things stated as fact can be truthful or untruthful. Predictions can come true or be unfulfilled.
My saying "Yes, the point of the word nerdrage is to drive home the point that it's ridiculous," does not mean that I think my opinion is the only one that anyone is allowed to have. I do, however, believe that my opinion is the best opinion to have. I wager you, likewise, believe that your opinions are best.
Actualy you can't be more wrong what I think about others opinions. Can you point out when I have said your opinion is not valid? Or call it ridiculous? I don't ever remember saying anything like..."It is irrational not to be insult by this ad"?
Heck on the WotC boards when the edition war hit the fan I spent time posting to disagree with some of the knee jerk reactions of how 4th ed is not D&D. That it is a MMO or a board game etc... And bringing up what areas I saw has problems in a rational manner...got lumped in the 'nerd rage' crowd. Hence why I hate it as it becomes all too convient of way to dismiss somebody.
But besides that point...people will feel insulted by thing are on a ton of factors. So my question to you is how can you...who never met anybody here in person or really know them can judge their feeling at being insulted as being irrational?
Also you completely miss the point I was making about the mini. I know 4th ed is not a mini's game...but I an see somebody who has played the game since 1st ed who never used minis( or any edition...and these people do exist) and like the game without minis look at that ad...now I am going to ask you to put yourself in that position. What would you take from the depiction of the 1st ed game? And what they said later? I don't know I think it is very rational to assume the 4th ed game will be heavily focused on minis...as one it seemed like they felt it was a problem...and 2 minis fixed this problem. Hence it was a bad ad because it misrepresented their product.
Also please note I was not offended by this commercial...though I can see rationaly how people could. I mean you are RPer...can't you change the way you think to see other people's viewpoints?
The teeth grinding comes from having to still point it out after 2 years and having people like yourself who know better continue to say, it is the same thing though. It is not, and that is ok, in fact in many cases it is better than ok. It is great that PF is so successful it doesn't have to claim to be 3.5.It doesn't have to claim it, but it IS houseruled 3.5. It's not a matter of blue and green, it's lime green and olive green. They're both still green.
It's no less 3.5 than Gauric Myths or any other set of houserules. Heck, even the Tomes and 4E are just 3.5 houserules at heart.
Saying Pathfinder is its own game is inaccurate.
Sigh...weighing in on pres man side here...just because you are missing his point. I don't neccessarily agree with it.
Would you call a 3.5 game 3rd edition or 3.0?
3.X
I miss a lot of things thanks to my low Wis score!
:) No...no offense pres man, but I can find his point hard to get myself.
How would you write a player wanted ad for game you want to run?
Oh, in that case, "D&D 3rd Edition. (Houserules to be discussed.)"
Ah ha...so you guys will never see eye to eye on it...so why argue? It is such a minor point.
If pres man did it he would but x edition so people will arrive knowing what is up...
You do it and take the 5 seconds to say what you are using...
What is the difference?
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Speaking of treating prior versions poorly, how did people feel about this scene?
I absolutely hated it. That movie thought it was too good for a robot owl, when in fact a robot owl would have improved it considerably.
|
|
Heck on the WotC boards when the edition war hit the fan I spent time posting to disagree with some of the knee jerk reactions of how 4th ed is not D&D. That it is a MMO or a board game etc... And bringing up what areas I saw has problems in a rational manner...got lumped in the 'nerd rage' crowd. Hence why I hate it as it becomes all too convient of way to dismiss somebody.
Having made the same experience, I can easily relate to that. And I have to admit, that this is one of ther reasons why I never became attached to 4E.
I cannot remember that I actually felt insulted by anything WotC did or announced (apart from their announcement regarding the magazine licences, when they alluded to that Paizo had given them back willingly while it was obvious that WotC had taken them away from Paizo). When I really felt insulted, it was mostly with the reaction I got when I disagreed with some thing a designer had announced.
To give an example, let's take a look at Matt Sernett's Design & Development Article "The Core Mechanic" from 2007.
And I quote:
Ever faced one of those life-or-death saving throws? Hours, weeks, or even years of play can hang in the balance. It all comes down to that one roll. There’s drama in that moment, but it’s drama you didn’t create, and you don’t want.
That’s gone in the new edition.
Have you played a spellcaster and been a little envious of the excitement of other players when they roll critical hits? Have you wished that you could do that for your spells?
You can in 4th.
Have you ever had some confusion or miscalculation about your normal AC versus your touch and flat-footed AC?
You won’t have to worry about it.
I disagree with all three points as reasons to change the core mechanic but it is obvious that Matt didn't intend to insult anyone with those sentences (and I would take exception to anyone who would feel insulted). But stating my disagreement (not necessarily in this but in a lot of other, similar cases) was often reason enough for other people to make derisive, insulting remarks about my competence, my intelligence and about me being one of those warmongers who only tried to badmouthing everything WotC did.
What made matters worse was that I had already spread the word about Paizo being awesome even before 4E was announced. Was no problem before then but with the announcement I suddenly became the enemy for quite some people
That was in no way the responsibility of WotC, so I don't blame them for that. They just happened to create a game system that doesn't appeal to me and making some other decisions which changed the product in a way I wasn't interested in. What made me really angry was the reaction I got from a lot of jerks when stating this disconnect I had with 4E. Which made me in turn a jerk myself in more than one case (and those are not my proudest moments).
So as far as I am concerned this whole edition war thing is less about 4E vs. 3.X/PF but about jerks being jerks.
"I find that insulting" is different from "That is insulting."If someone finds something to be insulting, then as far as they are concerned it is insulting. There is no distinction to the person who feels insulted.
You personally may not agree with them, but that doesn't change how they feel, or make them wrong to feel as they do.
People are free to say "I find that insulting."
Saying something is universally insulting is something else.
In many cases, people were insulted by the video due to preconceived notions rather then the commercial actually being insulting.
I completely disagree. Before I watched that ad, I was interested in 4e. I was hoping that ad was going to show me some more aspects of the game I hadn't heard yet, because if you recall at that time, rumors regarding rules changes were flying everywhere. I was tired of the hearsay, and I was hoping to get a better glimpse at the system itself. No, I wasn't expecting a full on breakdown of the rules, but something a little more tangible than the rumors I was hearing. I am a big fan of Star Wars Saga Edition rules, and there were rumors that it was a test bed for 4e rules. I wanted to see if there was any connection between the two systems, even just a hint.
I went into watching that with high hopes. I was a fan of WotC at the time. I've shelled out several thousands of dollars on their products over the years(played M;TG since '95) and it's ignorant to assume every single person who was slighted by that ad had "preconceived notions."
But that's just like, your opinion, man.
Pres man, there are some people who, when think confusing D&D 3.5 with Pathfinder is like confusing blue with green.I'm blue-green colorblind and take unreasonable umbrage at this metaphor for mocking my disability!
Oh. I feel faint. I must lie down.
Hurry up and summon the pony, I must sue for emotional cruelty and unspecified damages in the six-figure range!
Dammit! These aren't Bella Sara cards! I think that faux Santa guy switched my cards out when I wasn't looking. Hand me a new deck, I'll start over.
Chants:ponyponyponyponyponyponyponypony...
Speaking of treating prior versions poorly, how did people feel about this scene?
I absolutely hated it. That movie thought it was too good for a robot owl, when in fact a robot owl would have improved it considerably.
The whole movie, or just that scene? I was unprepared by how angry my daughter was at the story that was circulating around the actor's hissy fit that he reportedly had about that scene. Unfortunately, it is reported that he did think the movie was too good for a robot owl.
The teeth grinding comes from having to still point it out after 2 years and having people like yourself who know better continue to say, it is the same thing though. It is not, and that is ok, in fact in many cases it is better than ok. It is great that PF is so successful it doesn't have to claim to be 3.5.It doesn't have to claim it, but it IS houseruled 3.5. It's not a matter of blue and green, it's lime green and olive green. They're both still green.
It's no less 3.5 than Gauric Myths or any other set of houserules. Heck, even the Tomes and 4E are just 3.5 houserules at heart.
Saying Pathfinder is its own game is inaccurate.
Sigh...weighing in on pres man side here...just because you are missing his point. I don't neccessarily agree with it.
Would you call a 3.5 game 3rd edition or 3.0?
Look, I understand there may situations where saying PF is 3.5 or approximately 3.5 might be advantageous. For example let me give a dialogue I could see myself having.
pres man: Yeah, I run two games each week, why?
FG: Me and some of friends wanted to get into it, what do you recommend we play.
pm: My suggestion would be to get either Pathfinder or Dungeouns and Dragons 4th edition, those are the two most widely supported systems right now that I know anything about. Though, I personally would go with PF, because it closer to what I play.
FG: What do you play?
pm: I play D&D 3.5 edition. Pathfinder is very close to it, in fact it is a variant of it.
FG: So it is 3.5 D&D, why not just call it that?
pm: Well it isn't 3.5 D&D exactly, it is made by another company and many of the rules have been adjusted to fit their views on things should work. But it is very close, much closer than the 4th edition D&D is for example.
Again, my issue is an issue of clarity. Why muddy the waters when you don't have to? True20 is also based on D&D 3.x, should we call PF, True20? If A=B and B=C, then A=C right?
And Tri, you are right those others systems are just house-rules, or could be. My issue is making it clear which books you are using in the game.
If your groups main source book is this one, you are playing 3ed.
If your groups main source book is this one, you are playing 3.5.
If your groups main source book is this one, you are playing 4e.
If your groups main source book is this one, you are playing PF.
Why would I call PF 3.5 and risk taking the chance of someone bringing the wrong materials to game with? Clarity is never a bad thing.
3.X
I would use that to describe: 3e, 3.5, PF, Conan, True20, ... Any game system based on the OGL. But that barely narrows the field down.
Saying house-rules are equivalent to the difference between PF and 3.5, I just don't get that. Most GMs don't tell players to leave the game books behind because the house-rules will cover the entire system.
Let me ask to anyone here, if you are now playing PF, do you still use your 3.5 core books as your PRIMARY referenced guide? My impression is that very few, if any actually do that. If they are playing PF, they are using PF core rule book as their primary guide. If they were truly interchangable, I would expect larger number of people to stick with their older books because they are lighter (you might only need the PHB and not the DMG materials regularly).
So give me your time machine instead man, I’ll think of something good to do with it.
Actually, nah. I'd probably just end up becoming my own great-grandfather or something.
-The Gneech
Speaking of treating prior versions poorly, how did people feel about this scene?
I absolutely hated it. That movie thought it was too good for a robot owl, when in fact a robot owl would have improved it considerably.
Nicely put!
-TG
I wonder how many people realize that at least some of the people in the ad were D&D game designers.
i see chris perkins (the dm), but are there any others?
An Introduction: Legends and Lore
Does the writer indicate he has connections to any Abyssal lords, deities, or other political figures worth knowing?
Mr. Mearls name drops like crazy, but these names don't exactly mean much to a resident of the Abyss. Who's 'Bart Carroll'? Or this Winston Churchill? Or Gygax or Arneson? I've carried out enthusiastic and vigorous research in the City of Brass, and in half a dozen Golarion locations, and none of the sages I, umm, 'interviewed' indicated any knowledge of people with these names.In best journalistic traditions I can only assume that these are figures amongst his circles of friends or childhood inspirations in whatever profession he inhabits on whatever backwater world he's writing on. But given that they're not movers and shakers in the Abyss or any meaningful world, I think we can write them off as not terribly relevant.
Does the writer indicate any good restaurants for a succubus to wine and dine a client in or to otherwise generally hang out in?
No. Although early in the article Mr. Mearls mentions a 'tabletop MMO', which seems promising, he wanders off-track to write a lot of stuff about editions which leads me to suspect that sadly he must have been misusing MMO, or using it to indicate some local phenomenon.
Does the writer indicate that he juggles kittens and scimitars in his spare time, does unspeakable things with oozes, or otherwise engages in amazing activities likely to interest people?
That depends on what those 'games' he lists at the end of his article involve? If to 'call Cthulhu' (whomever or whatever that is) he has to tie Asmodeus worshipers (or any passable local substitutes such as lawyers) to stone-slabs at midnight and bloodily sacrifice them, chanting invocations to some other-worldly entity as he does so, that sounds kind of fun and interesting.
Other Comments? (including fruitcake rating if applicable)
The whole article seems to be a rather milky thing, in which he's trying to appeal to some community to put aside its differences and hang together... It leads me to wonder if Mr. Mearls is the leader of some sort of church or religious organisation in danger of schisming due to some difference in belief such as whether it's appropriate to refer to the deity as 'The Divine Gorum' or 'The most sacred, blood-covered, warmonger Gorum'?
<perks up as inspiration strike>
Hey! If he's the leader of a church or religious organisation, maybe he's fantastically wealthy, respected, and powerful in the place he lives!
Rating:
Not much to go on. Maybe worth a meal in Sandpoint on a journalistic expenses claim.
|
|
Oh, in that case, "D&D 3rd Edition. (Houserules to be discussed.)"Ah ha...so you guys will never see eye to eye on it...so why argue? It is such a minor point.
If pres man did it he would but x edition so people will arrive knowing what is up...
You do it and take the 5 seconds to say what you are using...
What is the difference?
Mostly because it seems to annoy pres man.
Your examples aren't insulting to 3E fans, but they are good examples of how the 4E buildup talked about 3E like it wasn't a very good game.
And actually, talked about 4E like it wasn't looking for a terribly sophisticated crowd :)
I dislike this argument. Now, I'm reading a lot into your statement, so lets clarify. I read this as you saying that because 4e is simplifying core mechanics and removing certain issues (multiple calculations for one type of defense, removing save-or-dies from being hinged on a single roll, etc) that you are saying the game is being targeted at a less sophisticated crowd, and that a more sophisticated gamer prefers a more complicated system.
If you aren't saying this, then feel free to ignore me.
That said, elegance and simplicity in game design is in general an excellent goal when it comes to actually playing a game.
Every minute you spend doing math, looking up an arcane rule, crafting an encounter, leveling a character... that's a minute you are not actually playing the RPG aspect of Dungeons & Dragons and instead are playing the Administrators and Accountants metagame.
While I will fully admit that the A&A metagame is fun. I love leveling up characters and applying vague rules. But it is a completely different type of fun than playing my character. Changing the game so that you play less A&A means you can play more D&D.
Games with highly complicated rulesets tend to reward system mastery and esoteric knowledge, but they also classically limit their appeal to a narrower spread of people. They also have issues where differing people with different levels of system mastery find it difficult to play together, because a complex game has many more stratifications than a simpler game. Sometimes that's a good thing! 'Sorry!' is an incredibly simple game, and I can play it with gamers, non-gamers, little kids, etc and it is therefore very accessible. It's also not much fun. On the other hand, Agricola or Puerto Rico are very complex games, not everyone can simply sit down and be playing in 5 minutes, and if the players aren't all at similar levels of skill, it's not going to be pretty for the newbies.
I'm blathering now, but I'd just like to point out that complexity for the sake of complexity (or 'realism') tends to make a game less playable rather than more so, and unless the point of the game is to understand the esoterics of the rules, you should avoid it.
In the end, I play tabletop RPGs to primarily toroleplay a character with my friends, NOT to minmax, optimize, charop, or otherwise display system mastery. That said, the charop portion of the game is still interesting to me and the other players (which is why we don't just play freeform), but it isn't the focus. As such, I don't mind that PF and 4E both simplified a lot of the system mastery requirements.
Whew.
Mostly because it seems to annoy pres man.
LOL. Ok, I see that you don't really disagree with me, you are just pulling my chain. Very good sir, very good.