D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[Hussar]

It is really fun to watch people really not understand words. Apparently compromise never meant what I understand it to mean. Just like update. Hmmmm.

 

[Rystefn]

It is really fun to watch people really not understand words. Apparently compromise never meant what I understand it to mean. Just like update. Hmmmm.

D&D already completely changed the meaning of the word "edition" in this hobby. Why not "compromise" and "update," too?

 

[Older Beholder]

D&D already completely changed the meaning of the word "edition" in this hobby. Why not "compromise" and "update," too?

Are you talking about 3.5?
In 27 year of working in libraries I’ve never seen a .5 edition of a book.

*edit: even .5 editions isn’t changing the meaning of the word.

 

[tetrasodium]

D&D already completely changed the meaning of the word "edition" in this hobby. Why not "compromise" and "update," too?

That's why I called the example capitulation back in 923

 

[Hussar]

That's why I called the example capitulation back in 923

I think the problem lies in the fact that you appear to believe that if the DM forgoes are changes anything at the request of the players, it's capitulation. That there can never be any compromise at the table. Additionally, you appear to see things as purely binary, which, in real life, is rarely true.

IOW, you are using language and meaning in a way that no one else is using and it's causing the conversation to stutter to a halt because you are insisting that your definitions must be adhered to. Which does nicely demonstrate your definition of binary.

 

[Maxperson]

No I'm fine with compromise, but if the gm says that x y &z is the game they will be running and what is allowed it's on a hypothetical player to admit that it's not the game for them.

No. It's perfectly fine for a player to ask for A, B and/or C in such a game. They should just be prepared to accept a final no if the DM won't say yes or compromise. Its not toxic or entitlement for a player to ask for an exception. D&D has been from day 1, an exception based system.

The toxically extreme entitlement is starkly clear in the fact that this has been going back and forth with two different posters calling for the gm alone to compromise.

Since I'm one of those posters, I'm going to respond. This is a completely incorrect assertion of what I have been arguing. At no point have I ever said or indicated in any way that the DM alone should be doing the compromising. Every example I gave was of both compromising. Nor did I ever say that the DM had to or should compromise. That's a table/DM decision on how they play the game.

I personally will try to figure out a way to make it happen or compromise, but if I can't and/or it would be disruptive, the answer will be no.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think the problem lies in the fact that you appear to believe that if the DM forgoes are changes anything at the request of the players, it's capitulation. That there can never be any compromise at the table. Additionally, you appear to see things as purely binary, which, in real life, is rarely true.

IOW, you are using language and meaning in a way that no one else is using and it's causing the conversation to stutter to a halt because you are insisting that your definitions must be adhered to. Which does nicely demonstrate your definition of binary.

That is because it is a binary thing. Look back at 869. "Lanefan said:
How can there be compromise, though, on what is clearly a binary yes-no decision as to whether something will be included or not?"

 

[Maxperson]

That is because it is a binary thing. Look back at 869. "Lanefan said:
How can there be compromise, though, on what is clearly a binary yes-no decision as to whether something will be included or not?"

It can only be binary if the DM insists on it being binary. Partial exceptions(compromise) can be made if the DM is open to it. That's what you are not seeing.

 

[tetrasodium]

No. It's perfectly fine for a player to ask for A, B and/or C in such a game. They should just be prepared to accept a final no if the DM won't say yes or compromise. Its not toxic or entitlement for a player to ask for an exception. D&D has been from day 1, an exception based system.

Indeed. It's fine to ask, the trouble is the expectation wotc is setting wrt compatibility causing players to expect it automatically your own efforts to show a middle ground stating the player compromised by getting some of the ask as if simply accepting it is compromise.

It can only be binary if the DM insists on it being binary. Partial exceptions(compromise) can be made if the DM is open to it. That's what you are not seeing.

Trouble is that those kind of exceptions lead to madness.... I believe I explained that to my reply to you back in 944. To which you responded questioning my ability to decide subjective elements as a GM.

 

[Hussar]

That is because it is a binary thing. Look back at 869. "Lanefan said:
How can there be compromise, though, on what is clearly a binary yes-no decision as to whether something will be included or not?"

Asked and answered in the post you quoted. It's only binary so long as one side absolutely insists that it is. Which is the definition of not compromising. If your definition of compromise is that only one side can ever "win" or get their way, that's not a definition of compromise that anyone else is using. Again, this is why your conversation has ground to a screeching halt. You are insisting on using a definition of compromise that isn't how anyone else is using it.