D&D 5E No One Plays High Level?

[EzekielRaiden]

It is if that's all they said.

This doesn't address the asymmetry between the claims.

"I didn't have a problem, so no problems exist" is a universal negative argued from an existential negative: "There is at least one X such that P is false" cannot, even in principle, prove "For all X, P is false." This is not valid reasoning. An existential negative cannot, even in principle, prove a universal negative.

"I had a problem, therefore a problem exists" is two existential positives: "There is at least one X such that P is true, therefore P is true for some X." This is valid reasoning. Now, it would be a flaw if the claim were instead, "I had a problem, therefore everyone has a problem" ("There is at least one X such that P is true, therefore for all X, P is true.") But I've never seen anyone make that argument. Essentially everyone recognizes that it is possible, whether intentionally or coincidentally, to never have a problem of this kind. Hence, no one is arguing that everyone definitely always has a problem--only that there are situations where the problem crops up.

 

[Oofta]

Just because your Pinto didn’t explode doesn’t mean they weren’t broken.

Just to set the record straight, the Pinto was one of the safer subcompact cars of the era. Per million miles driven it had considerably fewer deaths than Beetles, Corollas, Datsun 210 and Chevettes based on NHTSA fatality rates. Yes, if you were parked and a full size car of that era hit you going over 60 MPH you weren't walking away, but it had little to do with the car exploding.

In other words, some myths don't die whether or not they have basis in fact.

 

[Ondath]

So far, I've finished two long term 5e campaigns, where one ended at Level 20 and the other at Level 18.

For me, high level support is a big deal. When I run games, reaching beyond level 12 is not a lofty goal but something I actively encourage. So the game meaningfully supporting high levels is pretty important to me. And I know I'm an outlier, but I still hope D&D keeps supporting higher level content.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is it really? It certainly isn't the same level of hasty generalization as the previous. All one needs to do is show that some people have problems to show that, yes, something should probably be done to address them. One does not need to show that absolutely everyone has problems in order to say that there is a problem going on that could be fixed, or at least mitigated.

One must in fact actually show that nobody has a problem in order to say that there is no problem at all.

And I think, given the many, many, MANY threads on the topic...and statements from actual designers...and youtube videos...and personal stories...etc., etc., ad nauseam, is a pretty good reason to say that, yes, there are some problems here that could be addressed.


See above. The former is "because I don't have a problem, nobody could possibly have a problem." The latter is "because I have a problem, there is a problem to be solved." The two claims are not comparable. One is a universal negation "derived" from a single personal experience. The other is not a universal claim in any part. Proving a mere existence claim only requires one example. It is, of course, useful to demonstrate that the problem is not unique to you, but useful and necessary are two distinct things.


I make it a firm policy to fight for playstyles I don't personally enjoy. It's why I have always--since before 5e launched--advocated for robust, well-featured "zero level" rules present in the core books, and which are treated fairly and respectfully, not cordoned off or treated like something dangerous or problematic. I have no use for such rules; they represent a playstyle I have zero or even negative interest in playing. But I am firmly committed to getting them included, because I know a lot of people would love to have them.

I also advocate for playstyles I do enjoy. But I refuse to be selfish about it.

What if supporting one playstyle means harming another? No game can be everything, and I think it's unreasonable to expect anyone to advocate for something that would make their own experience worse.

 

[Minigiant]

What if supporting one playstyle means harming another? No game can be everything, and I think it's unreasonable to expect anyone to advocate for something that would make their own experience worse.

Supporting one playstyle only means harming another if you are bad at design or play favorites blatantly and massively.

TSR and WOTC designers have always had an issue with playstyle bias or blindness.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What if supporting one playstyle means harming another? No game can be everything, and I think it's unreasonable to expect anyone to advocate for something that would make their own experience worse.

Well, firstly, the burden of proof would be on the person asserting that two styles are so utterly incompatible that they cannot both be supported meaningfully.

Second, many people make a great deal of the idea that D&D does in fact try to be many things to many people--perhaps not all things to all people, but a pretty sizable chunk on both axes. I mean, 5e was literally billed to us, in part, as the "big tent" edition that was supposed to offer stuff for effectively everyone. I am of course rather convinced that it failed miserably at that task, and that that is why they quietly stopped talking about it about 2/3 of the way through the D&D Next playtest, but that doesn't mean the goal couldn't be achieved, just that they failed to do so.

Frankly, a lot of the things people claim are totally incompatible aren't. Supporting them doesn't even require the level of "modularity" that playtest-5e originally was claimed to (potentially) offer. E.g. you're gonna have your work cut out for you to explain how purely opt-in "zero level" rules would be incompatible with other styles of play.

 

[Minigiant]

This doesn't address the asymmetry between the claims.

I didn't they are symmetrical

Both arguments are wrong. Different levels of wrong. Especially with or without supporting context.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I didn't they are symmetrical

Both arguments are wrong. Different levels of wrong. Especially with or without supporting context.

Howso? The specific problem with the "I didn't have a problem, therefore there is no problem" is that it generalizes from a particular claim (a negative existential quantifier) to a general claim (a negative universal quantifier.) That fault does not exist in the other. They aren't "different levels of wrong." There's nothing wrong with the claim "I had a problem, therefore a problem exists at least some of the time." That is a perfectly valid statement, and I have yet to see a single instance of someone claiming the wrong version, "I had a problem, therefore everyone has a problem."

The two claims are not the same. Their logical structure is different, and precisely that difference makes the former a fallacy, and the latter perfectly ordinary. As I said, it is of course better (more useful, stronger) to show not just that you and only you had a problem, that lots of people did. But there is literally no fallacy present in the claim. The only thing you can say about it is that, totally in isolation, it may not be a very strong claim. But a valid claim is still valid even if it happens to be weak.

 

[Minigiant]

There's nothing wrong with the claim "I had a problem, therefore a problem exists at least some of the time." That is a perfectly valid statement, and I have yet to see a single instance of someone claiming the wrong version, "I had a problem, therefore everyone has a problem."

"I had a problem, therefore a problem exists at least some of the time." does not exclude the concept that the one making the statement could be creating the problem in a valid playstyle by literally playing the rules wrong or being attached to a specific version of a rule that causes the problem.


Many the problems with high level D&D is that some are attached to a specific type of D&D aspects which cause the problem and refuse to alter them"because it's not D&D". Such as broken spells, tons of spell slots, or primitive enemies.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just to set the record straight, the Pinto was one of the safer subcompact cars of the era. Per million miles driven it had considerably fewer deaths than Beetles, Corollas, Datsun 210 and Chevettes based on NHTSA fatality rates. Yes, if you were parked and a full size car of that era hit you going over 60 MPH you weren't walking away, but it had little to do with the car exploding.

In other words, some myths don't die whether or not they have basis in fact.

Pintos exploding wasn’t a myth though. Regardless, faulty analogy or not, I think I made my point.