D&D 5E Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)

[CroBob]

@CroBob , I've emphasized what I think the problem is:



Humans Are Not Rational. Due to our brains wiring, to our emotions, to the limits of our perceptions, we are very very flawed. Most of our decisions are ruled by irrational and subconscious forces. We only think we're making our own rational choices, because well, they're our choices and we're rational, so they must be rational choices...

There's a study that I think will help here. Two groups of people were given a scenario: "You are going to a play you want to see. Tickets for the play are $20." One group were told "You have purchased a ticket in advance. When you arrive at the theatre, you find the ticket is missing, but you have $40 in your pocket." The other group were told, "You brought cash to buy a ticket. When you get to the theatre, you find that one of your $20 bills are missing, but you have $40 in your pocket." Both groups were asked "Do you buy a new ticket to see the play?"

Most of the group who lost the $20 bill said yes. Most of the group who lost the ticket said no. The ticket group said "I don't want to buy something twice". But the $20 group lost the amount of the ticket, too! Both slips of paper intended for the play are worth the same amount; both groups lost $20.

The point here is that despite the superficial nature of it, purchasing the ticket meant something different than a slip of paper worth $20 they intended to use for the play.

In this situation, one group is putting more importance on the meaning of the word Fighter, and what that Means to them, built up over playing fighters or seeing them at their table for years. In their mind, "The Fighter is the master of weapons and is about killing enemies with weapons". So when 4e says "The fighter is a Defender, and good with melee weapons, it violates the impression they have built. And once an impression is made, our brains are very stubborn about giving them up. So here you have a Meaning that's important, and a Meaning resistant to change.

There are other factors here, of course - experience, taste, etc. But a lot of it is purely a psychological hiccup. Bare in mind I am not calling people who dislike the 4e Fighter for reasons listed above as irrational, necessarily. Merely that I'm explaining why something that is seemingly superficial actually matters to some people.

Every-day irrational behavior is one of my new favorite subjects in Psychology. I wish I'd done my Masters thesis on it. If you want to know more, there are about a dozen books I could recommend on the topic.

I think you missed "does not directly use magic or abilities which use the same mechanics thereof" in your definition of Fighter.

 

[Rechan]

[Redacted]

 

[timASW]

Who said the captain of the Titanic was incompetent?

Most likely all those dead people would have, if not for being ya know, dead and incapable of speech.

 

[CroBob]

Most likely all those dead people would have, if not for being ya know, dead and incapable of speech.

They would have been wrong. What's your point?

Sometimes things outside of the commander's influence occur, and the Titanic's accident was one of them.

 

[timASW]

Now that's not to say that Paizo doesn't try to be smart about their product, I've just always gotten the sense that making the best possible product was more important than maximizing every possible ounce of ROI.

The problem with that is that its too subjective. There isnt any one best RPG product.

Its like cars for example. You have the best sports car on the market, the best SUV on the market and the best truck on the market. They are all the absolute best they can be.

But the trucks and SUV's outsell the sports cars even though the sports cars are much better pieces of mechanical engineering they simply dont suit the needs or wants of as many people as trucks and SUV's do.

So do you tell WoTC "screw the bottom line, keep building shelby sports cars and go down with the ship"

Or do you say "okay maybe I personally love that shelby but lets keep the factory doors open and all those people getting a paycheck, go back to rolling out the F150's" ?

Its clear to me which way they decided to go. And I think that decision ALSO deserves respect. They are after all, attempting to give most of us what we want.

Maybe they will and maybe they'll screw it up but either way they realized their product wasnt serving most of the consumers and are trying to fix that.

 

[timASW]

They would have been wrong. What's your point?

Sometimes things outside of the commander's influence occur, and the Titanic's accident was one of them.

Or perhaps an experienced captain should have known he was in dangerous waters with a big unwieldy ship and rather then taking the easy shift and fraternizing with the rich passengers at night he could have

4. Taken the more dangerous watch himself, where he belonged

3. Posted more look outs because of the circumstances

2. Posted better flood lights for those look outs.

And numeral friggin uno

COUNTED THE GODDAMN LIFEBOATS BEFORE LEAVING DOCK.

Just maybe as the captain it wasnt just his job to see that one icy rock but to make sure the damn ship was outfitted properly before leaving dock in the first place. Just like every other captain on the sea has that job.

So yes, he was arrogant and incompetent.

 

[FireLance]

Would you be fine if PCs made up their own deities to worship as clerics as well?

It worked for Elan.

(Although technically, he's a Bard/Dashing Swordsman. )

 

[CroBob]

Or perhaps an experienced captain should have known he was in dangerous waters with a big unwieldy ship and rather then taking the easy shift and fraternizing with the rich passengers at night he could have

Well, I don't know anything about who Captain Smith socialized with, or when. However, he was the Captain and could make the schedule. It'd be nice for the Captain to always be on the bridge, but they're not. Is there a reason a Captain should presume his officers can't handle the ship when he's not physically on the bridge? If so, why have them?

4. Taken the more dangerous watch himself, where he belonged

Was he to assume that his other officers were incompetent, that they could not make decisions without him by their side? Exactly what was he going to do that his XO or Chief Officer couldn't?

3. Posted more look outs because of the circumstances

Sure, but why would the lookouts he had not notice what twice that number would? Yes, in retrospect, he could have done that. But he didn't. The issue wasn't so much the number of lookouts as it was too few supplies for them (binoculars, and such).

2. Posted better flood lights for those look outs.

This isn't such the obvious thing. What happens when you look out over a distance, with bright lights very close? Light noise interferes with seeing the distant objects. Yes, if the lights were powerful enough, they'd have highlighted an iceberg, but exactly how much power are we talking about, and why are we drowning out distant obstacles in favor of nearer ones, when more distant obstacles are the ones more easily avoided and thus will not become near obstacles? How far was this particular iceberg? Well, really close. A powerful floodlight would probably have helped. However, there are still those logistical problems with distant sight I just mentioned. So, yes, it would have helped with this specific iceberg, but it was the lesser strategy when dealing with most situations, and the more likely situations are the ones you plan for.

And numeral friggin uno

COUNTED THE GODDAMN LIFEBOATS BEFORE LEAVING DOCK.

Not the Captain's call, frankly. It was in compliance with the laws. Yes, the Captain could have refused to sail, but someone else would have taken the job in his stead if he had. Legally, nothing was wrong with the lifeboat situation. That's the fault of J. Bruce Ismay, not Captain Smith.

Just maybe as the captain it wasnt just his job to see that one icy rock but to make sure the damn ship was outfitted properly before leaving dock in the first place. Just like every other captain on the sea has that job.

What proper outfit means in modern day is different from what it meant back then. The best Captain Smith could do is delay the ship and not be aboard when it left.

So yes, he was arrogant and incompetent.

Arrogant, perhaps, but I still deny the incompetence.

 

[FireLance]

On a personal note, could I request that any further discussions on the competence or lack of it of the captain of the Titanic be taken offline?

Not only do I find finger-pointing exercises to be mostly futile and distasteful (smacking of witch-hunting and seeking to punish instead of trying to learn lessons and make improvements), it really is off-topic to the subject at hand.

One final comment on the mattter. From the Wikipedia article:

The recommendations [of investigations into the disaster] included major changes in maritime regulations to implement new safety measures, such as ensuring that more lifeboats were provided, that lifeboat drills were properly carried out and that wireless equipment on passenger ships was manned around the clock. An International Ice Patrol was set up to monitor the presence of icebergs in the North Atlantic, and maritime safety regulations were harmonised internationally through the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea; both measures are still in force today.

These, to me, are far more important outcomes than trying to pin blame.

 

[Hussar]

Would you be fine if PCs made up their own deities to worship as clerics as well?

Yup, absolutely. Heck, that's fairly standard in most of the games that I've played. Even in established settings, cleric players have always had a lot of leeway on interpreting their individual diety.

I'm not advocating that a DM shouldn't be able to choose (and mix and match) casting types, but I do believe.

1.) WotC should give us a default "baseline" assumption, or what the game uses if the DM doesn't want to change it. They can include rules for switching and using other systems in the DMG, where such stuff belongs.
2.) Changing magic systems assumed in a class should be the pervue of the DM in connection to how he runs his world; not a character choice on par with picking his background or specialty.

Why? Why should WOTC get to define my campaign world to that degree? And, why should the DM get to tell me how my wizard casts spells? Should a DM also tell fighter players what feats to pick and rogue players what skills to choose?

The fact that I'm a magic user and that magic users exist in the world is more than enough fodder for the DM. Whether I'm a mana mage or Vancian should not be the basis for his world building.

This is where my fear for next is being realized; too many conflicting views on what D&D should cater to. I want a solid system that I can tweak and twist using house rules as needed, not a do-it-yourself toolbox on which I can build any flavor of game I choose. I want D&D to be D&D, not GURPS d20.

Whereas I want a toolbox. That was where the game started and that's where I'd like it to go back to. 2e really hammered down the TSR approach to D&D where TSR got to define broad swaths of campaigns. 3e went even further by actually defining a whole bunch of the core world. 4e was just as bad as 3e, despite having a different approach to the baseline world - it was still pretty heavy handed.

I want to go back to the AD&D/Basic D&D approach where most of the game world is undefined by WOTC/TSR or, if it is defined, only in the sketchiest of terms. Don't give me a list of specific dieties (for example), just give me some generic diety types and I'll fill in the proper nouns that fit with my world.