D&D 5E My happiness or yours.

[the Jester]

Why would you continue to play a game you likened to dog crap? Seems like your endurance was self inflicted.

Because that's what friends do fo each other.

Nope. What friends do for each other is not expect the other guy to do unpleasant things in order to stay friends. Put another way, I have tons of gamer friends who play games I don't really care for, and which I don't participate in. Does that make us not-friends-anymore? Does it harm our friendship in any way at all? Nope. At least for my friends- and granted, I'm in my early 40s, so maybe it's a matter of age- we can maintain our relationships without forcing ourselves into activities we dislike. I decline many opportunities to go out to the movies with my friends, too, and that doesn't hurt our relationships, either.

Sorry, forgot who I was speaking to.

Casting understated, by-implication aspersions on another poster doesn't strengthen your case.

Do you actually live in the real world, or do you live in a fantasy world? Every edition made comes at the expense of others. Let's not try and paint the picture with happy colours. 4th edition came at the cost of 3rd edition fan's happiness. The game was so radically different that half the fanbase left. Same goes with 4th edition Forgotten Realms. No edition can please everybody and since a playtest has been done, people have outlined what they want and what they don't want. The designers will have to decide what they are going to do and who they are going to make happy and who is going to be unhappy. A good portion of the fanbase has already stated they don't like damage on a miss and the designers know this, if they leave it in anyway then they have chosen the happiness of those who like it at the expense of those who don't. It's not rocket science.

Nobody is arguing with the notion that not everyone will be happy. I mean, if something like damage on a miss is a dealbreaker for even one RPG player out there- and obviously it is- I am sure there are equally small, niggling bits of mechanics that will offend SOMEONE. I'm sure the skill system, whatever it looks like, will piss off someone or other.

What the majority seem to be arguing in this thread is that you, personally, seem to be saying that it's "your turn" to like the game; but that the rest of us disagree. We don't get to take turns having our playstyle and mechanical choices inserted into the edition du jour. Instead, we take what we're given and either like it (and play the game) or not (and don't).

Of course, there is the third choice- play a game you dislike- but that, frankly, is making the choice to be unhappy with your leisure activities. If that's your choice, that's fine, but I have a hard time fathoming how any friends worth the name could demand you sacrifice your happiness in order to stay friends. If they do- they aren't really friends in the first place.

If the REAL issue is having a gaming group with compatible tastes, seek that out. There is a gamers seeking gamers board on this very website. There are plenty of others. If you have a FLGS, you can recruit there. Hell, I've recruited gamers from the theater before a movie started before. If you can't find anyone with whom you share gaming taste, you can try to recruit new gamers to the fold, to find an online or play-by-mail game- there are tons of options other than playing with dog poop because that's what your friends do. I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but if you make the choice to play a game that you find that distasteful, all I can do is suggest alternatives. The rest is up to you. If you stubbornly insist that you MUST play a game you detest with your current group of friends, fine- that's your choice. But if you won't do anything to fix the problem, I don't know what to tell you- and bitching on a message board is not going to fix the game you are playing with your friends.

 

[Umbran]

Sorry, forgot who I was speaking to.

Folks, XunValdorl here apparently couldn't keep from making things personal. He won't be in the conversation for a while. Please continue as if he were not here, and be polite. Thanks.

 

[Dominar Rygel XVI]

Nope. What friends do for each other is not expect the other guy to do unpleasant things in order to stay friends. Put another way, I have tons of gamer friends who play games I don't really care for, and which I don't participate in. Does that make us not-friends-anymore? Does it harm our friendship in any way at all? Nope. At least for my friends- and granted, I'm in my early 40s, so maybe it's a matter of age- we can maintain our relationships without forcing ourselves into activities we dislike. I decline many opportunities to go out to the movies with my friends, too, and that doesn't hurt our relationships, either.



Casting understated, by-implication aspersions on another poster doesn't strengthen your case.



Nobody is arguing with the notion that not everyone will be happy. I mean, if something like damage on a miss is a dealbreaker for even one RPG player out there- and obviously it is- I am sure there are equally small, niggling bits of mechanics that will offend SOMEONE. I'm sure the skill system, whatever it looks like, will piss off someone or other.

What the majority seem to be arguing in this thread is that you, personally, seem to be saying that it's "your turn" to like the game; but that the rest of us disagree. We don't get to take turns having our playstyle and mechanical choices inserted into the edition du jour. Instead, we take what we're given and either like it (and play the game) or not (and don't).

Of course, there is the third choice- play a game you dislike- but that, frankly, is making the choice to be unhappy with your leisure activities. If that's your choice, that's fine, but I have a hard time fathoming how any friends worth the name could demand you sacrifice your happiness in order to stay friends. If they do- they aren't really friends in the first place.

If the REAL issue is having a gaming group with compatible tastes, seek that out. There is a gamers seeking gamers board on this very website. There are plenty of others. If you have a FLGS, you can recruit there. Hell, I've recruited gamers from the theater before a movie started before. If you can't find anyone with whom you share gaming taste, you can try to recruit new gamers to the fold, to find an online or play-by-mail game- there are tons of options other than playing with dog poop because that's what your friends do. I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but if you make the choice to play a game that you find that distasteful, all I can do is suggest alternatives. The rest is up to you. If you stubbornly insist that you MUST play a game you detest with your current group of friends, fine- that's your choice. But if you won't do anything to fix the problem, I don't know what to tell you- and bitching on a message board is not going to fix the game you are playing with your friends.

Going to have to say I agree with Xun.

When you are a paying customer, you feel you should have a turn where you are happy. Especially when it envolves a system that does come in editions.

 

[herrozerro]

Going to have to say I agree with Xun.

When you are a paying customer, you feel you should have a turn where you are happy. Especially when it envolves a system that does come in editions.

But what about all of the other paying customers? Who's turn should it be?

Just because you can feel entitled doesn't mean you are.

Since I supported the last edition fully I feel entitled to a game that I do not hate.

 

[steenan]

Why would anybody be entitled to anything?
IMO, this way lie broken hearts and a lot of anger.

Why not just wait until the game is released, see if we like it and buy it if we do?

 

[oxybe]

Why would I give my seat to someone else when you are playing at a friend's private game?

That comment makes no sense.

while it seems Xun's going to be away for a bit, i'll reply to this none the less:

because most D&D tables generally can't accommodate the full circle of friends and acquaintances one has and never, in my experience, the full community's worth of bodies the group, as a whole, has access to.

i stopped playing in my friend's pathfinder game after it stopped being fun or me and they filled that seat up with a fresh PC (and as such, a fresh player) the week after. last i heard, he's having fun.

win-win, i daresay.

Going to have to say I agree with Xun.

When you are a paying customer, you feel you should have a turn where you are happy. Especially when it envolves a system that does come in editions.

if you had already purchased D&D5th, i might be inclined to agree, but you have yet to spend a copper on the game yet as it hasn't been published.

as it stands you're not a paying customer: you're a potential customer, as am i, and you're no more or less entitled to controlling the game's direction then me, which is to say not at all.

we can ask, provide feedback and hope the guys in charge agree with either of us (or both of us, depending on the content!), but if you feel like they should is simply agree with you now when they didn't before simply due to an edition change is misplaced emotion.

none of us are paying customers of 5th ed, yet. i would be pleased if the game turns out to be one i will buy, but if it doesn't, no skin off my back. i have no innate loyalty to the brand in itself, only to the finished products that i can judge on it's own merits.

 

[the Jester]

Going to have to say I agree with Xun.

When you are a paying customer, you feel you should have a turn where you are happy. Especially when it envolves a system that does come in editions.

Another way of looking at it might be to not pay for a product that doesn't make you happy.

I agree that, when I buy a game, I feel that I should get some fun out of it. The solution, though, is not to buy games you won't enjoy. You won't catch me buying a Monopoly set, for instance; it isn't that Monopoly isn't a fine game, it's that it isn't to my tastes.

But let's say that you are entitled to have "your turn."

What if, when it's "my turn" to be happy, I want a game full of arcane, complicated, micromanaging mechanics? What if I want specific rules that say you MUST track ammo, food, water, oil, torches, etc.? What if I want a completely unbalanced game where fighters get, essentially, nothing, and where clerics and wizards rule the roost? What if I want a game that explicitly bans any social skills from affecting the game, that has "instant death on a natural 20" rules (bye bye long lived pcs!), and includes a rule that when your pc dies, you have to strip naked and run around the block? Should WotC make such a crapfest because it's "my turn to be happy"?

I think we can all agree that this is a completely ridiculous proposition. Gamers would revolt. Very few people would want a system where every attack roll requires consulting 10 subtables for hit location and realistic damage effects. Yet, XunValdorl seems to be suggesting that when it's "my turn", WotC should cater to me at the expense of everyone else.

I strongly disagree. Yes, this particular argument was reducto ad absurdum, but in my opinion, the whole proposition is already absurd. WotC is a business. D&D is a product that they make to sell, to make money with. It's not a personalized work of art just for you- until you make it one by running the game. You have no "right" to anything with D&D. You're not "entitled" to anything from WotC. They need to sell units, period, and if offering me my ideal game is going to alienate thousands of others, they should be more than willing to tell my preferences to shove right off.

Now, do I want a game tailored to my style and preferences? OF COURSE I DO! But do I expect it? Am I entitled to it? Heck no! On the other hand, I'm more than willing to take the game I get and mold it to my tastes, style and preferences. Damage on a miss? Why, if I hate it that much, I'll come up with a simple swap-in option. It's not that hard. Many experienced dms have been tweaking the game for decades, regardless of the ruleset, to make it better for them. I'd even say most dms have done this. Instead of demanding "My way or the highway!", which is what the various "this one mechanic bothers me SOOOO MUCH that I'm fired from D&D" complaints sound like to me, why not just work up a fix? It's honestly not that hard to come up with something. Failing that, simply ban damage-on-a-miss (or whatever it is). But the assertion that the game must be tailored to someone's tastes because it's their turn just seems to me to be nothing but pure entitlement (meaning no offense to anyone in particular).

 

[Jester David]

In one of the many, many WotC battles over DoaM I cited the case of My Happiness V. Your Happiness. I tried to present it in a logical manner. \
The argument went like this:

There's a game element (element X) that is hated by one group and liked by another group: (element X) brings Group 1 happiness and brings Group 2 unhappiness.
What (element X) is doesn't matter. It's functionally irrelevant.
Keeping (element X) makes Group 1 happy but also makes Group 2 unhappy. Removing (element X) means that Group 1 is no longer happy and Group 2 is no longer unhappy. However, it does not mean Group 1 is unhappy, as they simply become less happy, or -at worst- neutral.

This is always the case, providing no one group has a vast majority. It applies if the audience is split event, if both groups are large minorities, or even if both groups are just small minorities and the majority has no opinion on the matter.

Again, what (element X) is has no impact on the argument. You can replace (element X) with Damage on a Miss, lasting wounds, negative racial stat modifiers, sexist/sexy art, or even THACO.

There are some exceptions, such as balance. Perfect balance might make one group unhappy, but adding imbalance will move the other group right to unhappy. But this is more the result of balance not being a single element but a sliding scale, with either extreme being problematic.


You can't make everyone happy. That's impossible. But you can try make as many people content and satisfied as possible. You can try to make as few people unhappy as possible. Just giving up on people, abandoning a portion of your audience, should be avoided whenever possible.

 

[Umbran]

Going to have to say I agree with Xun.

Well, yes. That's to be expected, as you seem to be the same person. Using an alt to get around a ban is itself a bannable offense.]

 

[Obryn]

You can't make everyone happy. That's impossible. But you can try make as many people content and satisfied as possible. You can try to make as few people unhappy as possible. Just giving up on people, abandoning a portion of your audience, should be avoided whenever possible.

I disagree that this should be the guiding force behind any game design. That's just that dumb pizza analogy reworded into generic, non-pizza terms. It rests on a number of assumptions - among them that the designers' vision of their game is less valuable than that of their (supposed) fans.

Your goal when designing a game should be to design the best game you can, full stop. Designing a game to please your loudest objectors results in a bland, shapeless mess.