D&D 5E "Damage on a miss" poll.

[Ahnehnois]

No one said he got discouraged after a single miss. Thats hugely unfair.

Yes, someone did literally say that:

he just got really frustrated with making no difference in the game for a turn

I would characterize my response to that issue as "charitable".

 

[urLordy]

Before this thread gets closed to a remission of snarky one-liners and posts that convey no useful information, I just wanted to genuinely thank everyone who contributed. DoaM is a bit of a poster boy for that sort of controversial discussion, but in the right hands it can also yield posts that are fun to argue or thoughtful or intellectually provoking. Thanks for all the fish!

 

[ThirdWizard]

This approach to it makes me think of video games where you can tweak the settings (or apply cheat codes) to make failure impossible.

There should be a rule where if you say a future version of D&D is too video gamey you immediately lose any argument you're having and the thing you dislike is automatically in the next edition.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes, someone did literally say that:I would characterize my response to that issue as "charitable".

You misinterpreted what I said. You read "a" to mean "one", but that's not the intent of the sentence. He got frustrated with making no difference for a turn, time after time, until finally he turned to a different set of powers to address the playstyle he wanted to play. It was the concept of "I make no difference this turn" that frustrated him, not that it happened only one time.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, there's a novel idea. If something doesn't make sense to me, I should just change my way of thinking until it does.

Um, no thanks.

Depends. Do you want to understand other people's positions, or only advocate for your own? As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said, "IF you want to understand why some people like it...". If you don't wish to understand, than you are of course under no expectation to stretch yourself to think in a different way.

 

[Halivar]

There should be a rule where if you say a future version of D&D is too video gamey you immediately lose any argument you're having and the thing you dislike is automatically in the next edition.

Giving 10% of all book sales to Halivar is too video gamey.

Dang... I lost the argument. Oh well...

 

[Mistwell]

Well, there's a novel idea. If something doesn't make sense to me, I should just change my way of thinking until it does.

Um, no thanks.

Wow. That should be your signature right there.

 

[TwoSix]

There should be a rule where if you say a future version of D&D is too video gamey you immediately lose any argument you're having and the thing you dislike is automatically in the next edition.

Well, to be fair, he didn't say that D&D being like a video game was an obvious pejorative, just that one feature reminded him of a video game feature. That's pretty fair, video games are close to a lingua franca for TTRPGers.

However, his assertion is flawed for numerous reasons. In most FPS, if you aim correctly, you do always hit the target! There's no random chance of damage. That's because a FPS is primarily testing your physical coordination and ability to anticipate. That's not what the d20 roll in a combat situation is attempting to model, holodeck-sim play aside.

Also, the argument seems to present a model where character death is inherently good, and not wishing to see your character be constantly at risk means you're not a real D&D tough guy.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Depends. Do you want to understand other people's positions, or only advocate for your own? As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said, "IF you want to understand why some people like it...". If you don't wish to understand, than you are of course under no expectation to stretch yourself to think in a different way.

I shouldn't have to. I asked to have it explained to me. Either someone will explain it in a way that makes sense to me, or they won't. Explanations for "damage on a miss" that rely on redefining or ignoring the word "miss" are unproductive and don't address the question, to say the least.

The goalposts have shifted so much from why it's okay to have damage on a miss, to why it isn't a miss, to why it isn't damage, to why it doesn't matter, I hardly think it's my fault if I haven't gleaned anything coherent from the posts on this issue.

 

[The Human Target]

You know, in the Great Edition Wars(tm) people were mean to each other over much bigger things; powers, monster construction, the very underpinnings of the game.

Here we are slinging crap over a paragraph. Kind of a waste of 79 pages, all told.

I agree, but I guess the argument has been made that it is an example of a larger game concept.