D&D 5E How should WoTC address different playstyles of D&D Next?

[Mistwell]

double

 

[Mistwell]

It might sound like that to you, but since I'm self-aware of my own state of mind far bettter than you are, I can assure you that I do NOT want to complain about the validity of the mechanic itself here. When I wrote " I will not argue the merits of this mechanic as is" I meant it. Will you please give me the benefit of the doubt? I am genuinely interested in the larger context, as I said. I don't like the tone of your post at all, but I'm willing to look past that.

A thread about how you don't like WOTC's response to the opponants of Damage on a Miss, is just another thread about Damage on a Miss.

If you want to know why your poll is having some trouble, causing a lot of people to simply not like the options presented and not like the assumptions in the poll (roughly 1 in 5) try this experiment: take all the Damage on a Miss out of your explanation, and replace it with something else. If you find there is nothing else you can possibly replace it with, then you have your answer as to what this thread is about.

All the threads about Damage on a Miss (any aspect of it) are getting shut down at WOTC, and here, for good reason. It's causing too many people to behave rudely, and it needs a cool-down.

So my advice, which you are of course free to ignore, is to either replace all reference to Damage on a Miss in your explanation, or else just give it a rest. The debate on Damage on a Miss has had it's fair hearing. They're working on it. Just leave it alone for a while. We don't need another poll about Damage on a Miss - not even about WOTC's response to the controversy about Damage on a Miss.

 

[urLordy]

Mistwell seem to be missing the forest for the trees, and trying to make it into something that it's not. Fine, I can't change his mind. To everyone else, this is NOT a thread about the merits of DoaM.

 

[Mistwell]

Mistwell seem to be missing the forest for the trees, and trying to make it into something that it's not. Fine, I can't change his mind. To everyone else, this is NOT a thread about the merits of DoaM.

I didn't say it was. I am saying it's a thread about WOTC's reaction to people to who oppose Damage on a Miss. Am I wrong in saying that?

 

[TerraDave]

Is this really about damage on a miss? seriously?

what does that have to do with "play styles"?

D&D has always been the big tent game. I have always had players with different play styles, and the DMs I have known have had differences in play style. I think D&D can appeal to a broader range of gamers then, say WoD, CoC or even something "universal" like GURPS. You can also argue that in same ways 3E in or 4E narrowed the style too much.

But again, I have no idea what this has to do with damage on a miss.

 

[urLordy]

I didn't say it was.

Your post #17 asked/assumed I was complaining about the mechanic and you implied/asked if I was strategizing a way to complain about it again. You were wrong about my state of mind.

I am saying it's a thread about WOTC's reaction to people to who oppose Damage on a Miss. Am I wrong in saying that?

Yes, you are wrong. The issue is not the same as the example. One is the forest, the other is the tree. You are wrong to assume that by using a tree as an example, that this thread must be "about" that tree (if that's what you're claiming) or that I'm pretending to talk about the forest only so that I can complain about the tree (which you did ask or assume). In that you are wrong, honestly. OTOH, if people try to talk about DoaM only (or hit points or whatever), and assuming everyone else is too, then yes, the thread WILL become exclusively about DoaM or exclusively about WoTC's reaction to DoaM.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I put a gestalt of "discuss with fans" and "manage expectations" type stuff. I think that expecting any set of rules *as written* to support multiple play styles is a pipe dream. You can make a ruleset support your chosen style - by changing the rules (maybe only subtly) - but as written they will generally either suffer style clashes or support one specific style well. As @Johnny3D3D says, DDN has bits of rules to appeal to lovers of several styles, but in the end it still feels like its pushing to one particular "mode"....

This. The key is how easy things are to houserule. Take the long rest/short rest rules as an example: it's not too hard to make a couple quick changes to the text to change the rules to serve the needs of different playstyles. Better yet, the sidebars actually suggest the most common changes that a group might need to make.

This, I think, is as close as we're going to get to supporting conflicting playstyles. And that's fine with me.

 

[Ahnehnois]

what does that have to do with "play styles"?

Exactly. Nothing.

 

[Mistwell]

Your post #17 asked/assumed I was complaining about the mechanic and you implied/asked if I was strategizing a way to complain about it again. You were wrong about my state of mind.Yes, you are wrong. The issue is not the same as the example. One is the forest, the other is the tree. You are wrong to assume that by using a tree as an example, that this thread must be "about" that tree (if that's what you're claiming) or that I'm pretending to talk about the forest only so that I can complain about the tree (which you did ask or assume). In that you are wrong, honestly. OTOH, if people try to talk about DoaM only (or hit points or whatever), and assuming everyone else is too, then yes, the thread WILL become exclusively about DoaM or exclusively about WoTC's reaction to DoaM.

Try this experiment: take all the Damage on a Miss out of your explanation, and replace it with something else. If you find there is nothing else you can possibly replace it with, then you have your answer as to what this thread is about.

I asked you earlier to name another tree, and you dismissed it. But you're saying it's just one tree of a forest of trees. OK, so name another tree. Everything in your explanation was about Damage on a Miss. You said everything had gone fine until Damage on a Miss happened, and then it all went bad, using just examples of Damage on a Miss. If this really is a broader issue than just that issue...then NAME SOME OTHER ISSUES.

 

[urLordy]

I asked you earlier to name another tree, and you dismissed it. But you're saying it's just one tree of a forest of trees. OK, so name another tree. Everything in your explanation was about Damage on a Miss. You said everything had gone fine until Damage on a Miss happened, and then it all went bad, using just examples of Damage on a Miss. If this really is a broader issue than just that issue...then NAME SOME OTHER ISSUES.

No. To someone else, I already have started on that with Manbearcat and Balesir. You, no, never. You have a history of being fixated on individual examples (like that acid spell argument that went for pages and pages across 2 threads) and you continue to do so. It's not fun or interesting talking to you, ok?