D&D 5E UA and depth of complexity

[Parmandur]

No he didn't and the proof of burden is on you since you made the claim. I remember the surveys and all they talked about was a smaller release schedule which can be anything when you are starting from the assumptions of the 3rd and 4th edition releases.

Yeah, he did: it was in one of the recent interviews he discussed their findings on that score. Since it is working for them, their conclusions appear to be sound: what concrete evidence to the co teary do you have?

 

[Corpsetaker]

Yeah, he did: it was in one of the recent interviews he discussed their findings on that score. Since it is working for them, their conclusions appear to be sound: what concrete evidence to the co teary do you have?

Let's see it then. Burden is on you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When I read about people offering "just do it yourself" it's most often merely a thinly veiled attempt to dismiss and denigrate valid concerns.

Well, obviously. OK, partially. It's a little more reasonable & sophisticated than that, too.
5e encourages rulings-not-rules approaches, and that includes modding or /adding to/ the game. So it's in the spirit of 5e. Of course that same spirit includes cutting rules you don't like, as well - and 5e makes rules outside (and even within) core, officially optional, and the design does make some compromises to facilitate opting out of certain rules...

Since they never have the intention of doing any game design themselves, they don't have to care about grossly underestimating the complexity and difficulty level

Not true. Jester David, for instance, is quick with the DiY come-back, and he /is/ an active amateur game designer wit a whole portfolio of work up on DMsGuild.

You and others keep repeating this assertion, but without ever acknowledging that they (we) do have concerns that changes would affect our games.

Those concerns are valid - within the context of organized play like AL.

Within that context (and there is an AL forum here), it makes a lot of sense to voice them, and to have a reasonable expectation that AL not adopt overly 'controversial' new options, or at least leave to individually DMs the option of allowing them or not.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Perhaps I need to tell you how a forum works.

If I start a thread asking people for their ideas on "depth on complexity" rules additions, having a Sacrosanct derail the topic by posting Top Three Reasons This Won't Happen (or some such) is wholly unwelcome, and I politely ask you to go away. Perhaps start a new thread?

If I'm staying on topic, which I am (the topic of adding this sort of complexity) that is not derailing by what the definition of what derailing is. Secondly, it's simply silly that we should have an expectation that everyone create a new thread every time there is a disagreement. We'd have a million threads all on the same topic which is ridiculous when you can have a single thread to have that discussion. It also makes for following the discussion a whole lot easier instead of having to go to a dozen threads to do so.

So I'm sorry, you opening a thread and saying no one can disagree with you is not preventing threadcapping, it's preventing discussion. This forum is not an echo chamber, nor is it designed to be.

And finally, you never did answer my question. I wasn't being flippant. You've spend A LOT of time and energy talking about what you feel is lacking in the game and how to "fix" it, so where are your products on the DM's Guild at?

Because if you don't have any, then it sure seems to me that you and Corpstaker don't actually want a solution (since you've been given a very real legitimate one), but want to complain for the sake of complaining. Literally for years you've come up with solutions to your problems you encounter via thread discussions. Why aren't you using them? Why aren't you sharing them with others who have the same problem if there are so many people with the same problem as you? That's what the DMs Guild is designed for, specifically for people like you who want things out of scope from the base game.

That's a really dismissive response. Please assume people posting in 5E threads are 5E players.

That would be a bad assumption. I don't know if it's still true, but about a year ago Chocolategravy admitted he doesn't even play 5e.

 

[Parmandur]

Let's see it then. Burden is on you.

I know you read that interview, because you posted in the thread about it; you know what WotC has said, and that they are happy with performance in light of their decision. What proof do you have to counter that?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Those concerns are valid - within the context of organized play like AL.

Within that context (and there is an AL forum here), it makes a lot of sense to voice them, and to have a reasonable expectation that AL not adopt overly 'controversial' new options, or at least leave to individually DMs the option of allowing them or not.

I think it's valid beyond AL. DMs are a finite resource. You may not be able to simply "find a new DM".

Or maybe you've been playing with the same group for years, and you like everything about your table and the DM except that he (she) has a penchant for allowing anything that's "official".

Or maybe you *are* the DM and you like to be inclusive, but you know there are a handful of people who show up wingeing and demanding that you allow "official" content, and the ensuing arguments spoil the atmosphere.

Yes, there are solutions to all of these things. But:
1) They are all examples of how the impact of undesirable content (whether it's complexity or specific classes you detest) is more complex than "if you don't like it don't use it".
2) There's also a solution to not having the complexity: use unofficial content.

Again, not trying to argue that one side or the other is right, just that opposition to new forms of content isn't by definition selfish. (Nor is discussing that opposition in this forum, even if one's opposition is solely based on AL.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

Let's see it then. Burden is on you.

Corpsetaker seems to be under the mistaken impression that he is some sort of arbiter or judge and can demand things.

Let me rewrite the above as a person genuinely interested in inquiry and respectful of others might:

"I would like to just take you at your word but I feel like I would remember that if I had read it. One of us must be mistaken. If you have a specific reference I would really like to see it. Thanks."

And then, if the reference is linked, a brief follow-up:

"Huh, interesting. Thanks for sharing. Here's how it affects my viewpoint...."

I wouldn't think these sorts of tutorials would be necessary. I blame our schools.

 

[Parmandur]

Corpsetaker seems to be under the mistaken impression that he is some sort of arbiter or judge and can demand things.

Let me rewrite the above as a person genuinely interested in inquiry and respectful of others might:

"I would like to just take you at your word but I feel like I would remember that if I had read it. One of us must be mistaken. If you have a specific reference I would really like to see it. Thanks."

And then, if the reference is linked, a brief follow-up:

"Huh, interesting. Thanks for sharing. Here's how it affects my viewpoint...."

I wouldn't think these sorts of tutorials would be necessary. I blame our schools.

I believe this is the interview in question:

https://dontsplitthepodcastnetwork.com/table-top-babble/2017/1/2/001-mike-mearls

 

[Morrus]

This thread is full of people making snotty responses to each other and reporting each other constantly. It's making the Reported Posts forum rather dull. Closed.