OSR D&D 5e OSR backwards compatibility

[Morrus]

But that's not the topic Morrus. We're not talking about the game's overall quality - we're talking about the ability of the game to maintain backwards compatibility. The author is implying "the game will have more trouble maintaining backwards compatibility because relative levels of combat effectiveness have significantly changed". So yeah it's not about the fighter OR the game in general - it's about the game's ability to be compatible with prior adventures and characters from prior versions of the game.

So disagree with it. I don't agree with it, either. I haven't accused the author of trying to mislead anyone or of trying to be inflammatory, though?

Oh, I've said that about a dozen times now. It's my main point, and it's being ignored for some reason. But I'm not gonna keep typing that sentence out; RSI isn't a condition I seek.

Nobody is upset about that as far as I can tell (and now I think you're the one ascribing motives here). We're upset about the conclusion that, because of that disparity, the game will not be as backwards compatible as Mearls and company have said it would be.

You're upset about it? Really? That, then, is my issue. I disagree with the article. I sure as heck ain't upset about it, and see no reason to accuse its author of anything. I find this thread more distasteful than the article, even if the latter is wrong.

 

[Mistwell]

No, no. The people who used words like "inflammatory" and "misleading" were the ones who added the moral component to which I'm objecting. I'd have not even raised an eyebrow had people not been throwing those aspersions around.

I think I've said it several times, but I'll say it again - disagreeing with the article is fine. Casting aspersions on the author for it is not.

One big goal of 5e is to be more backwards compatible than 3e/4e.

The author is saying it's not meeting that goal because of the disparity in power levels.

That's misleading, and inflammatory in the sense that it might cause people who are unsure about it's ability to be backwards compatible to conclude it's much worse at achieving that goal than it really is.

If I said, "Pathfinder claims to be compatible with 3.5 material, but really the power levels are such that it's not really compatible with 3.5 material anymore" you'd get that might be viewed as misleading and inflammatory, right?

It's worse at fighting. It's not necessarily worse at being part of a game. A version of 3E where the fighter gets a +1,000,000 BAB isn't better than one where he doesn't, but yes, as you say, that fighter is better at fighting. I haven't and wouldn't claim otherwise. The game is worse for it, though.

OK how about "it's worse at being backwards compatible than WOTC was claiming"?

 

[Wyckedemus]

A fighter's effectiveness level cannot be inflammatory. It cannot give rise to upset. It has no moral or emotional context. Is a less efficient fighter class inferior game design in your opinion? Or superior? Or what? Do better games have more efficient fighters or something? I don't get it. Is M&M a better game because it has Superman in it?

If you disagree with the article, that's fine. Debating it is fun and interesting. Casting aspersions on the motives or character of the author or ascribe emotional descriptors like "inflammatory" or levels of "innocence" to it? Pure silliness.

Yeah, I know. "But, internet". That's what the internet does, whatever the topic. Doesn't mean I don't cringe when I see it.

I love ya Morrus, but you seem to be taking his statement that the 5E fighter is less effective and efficient as a fact. That is what I'm concerned about. Misinformation.

His research does not in any way prove that claim. The only thing his research shows is a variance in "BAB" between editions. The only statement that can be made is "The 5E fighter's "base attack bonus" is lower than previous editions." (Which has little to do with actual effectiveness. Those different editions have too many other variables that are built in.) But that also isn't what he's saying. He's saying the 5E fighter is overall significantly less effective than all other versions of the fighter. Maybe he's not intending to call the 5E fighter worse than all other editions, but that is how it comes off to me. Because I cannot *fathom* how he can get that conclusion from that one axis of data.

tl;dr: I'm not saying that "the fighter's effectiveness is inflammatory". I'm not saying that I don't find the research and chart interesting. I'm saying that I'm frustrated that the author is using that research as evidence to make the claim that the 5E fighter is less effective (i.e. worse) than previous fighters. Which is either a) an erroneous and misspoken conclusion based on incomplete evidence; or b) an intended misuse of the evidence to convince others that it is true. Either way, I don't want people accepting that conclusion as fact. Because it isn't one.


... in my opinion.

 

[Mistwell]

So disagree with it. I don't agree with it, either. I haven't accused the author of trying to mislead anyone or of trying to be inflammatory, though?

Oh, I've said that about a dozen times now. It's my main point, and it's being ignored for some reason. But I'm not gonna keep typing that sentence out; RSI isn't a condition I seek.



You're upset about it? Really? That, then, is my issue. I disagree with the article. I sure as heck ain't upset about it, and see no reason to accuse its author of anything. I find this thread more distasteful than the article, even if the latter is wrong.

I was using your term "upset". No, of course I am not really upset. I'm trying to explain the reaction you're seeing here.

 

[Morrus]

I love ya Morrus, but you seem to be taking his statement that the 5E fighter is less effective and efficient as a fact.

No, I'm not at all. I believe him to be wrong. I just don't believe he is attempting to mislead anybody or to be inflammatory.

 

[Morrus]

One big goal of 5e is to be more backwards compatible than 3e/4e.

The author is saying it's not meeting that goal because of the disparity in power levels.

That's misleading, and inflammatory in the sense that it might cause people who are unsure about it's ability to be backwards compatible to conclude it's much worse at achieving that goal than it really is.

If I said, "Pathfinder claims to be compatible with 3.5 material, but really the power levels are such that it's not really compatible with 3.5 material anymore" you'd get that might be viewed as misleading and inflammatory, right??

Ah, gotcha. You're conflating "wrong" with "misleading and inflammatory". I got an answer wrong once at school, and, man, those accusations of attempting to mislead and inflame! It's enough to drive a 7-year old to drink!

"Misleading" and "inflammatory" are emotional, accusatory words, whether you want them to be or not. One chooses them deliberately in order to to be inflammatory oneself.

 

[Blackbrrd]

@Mistwell thanks for the lawyering, it was actually very helpful to start clearing up the misunderstanding.
[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] I actually find you really patient and to the point, even if you were misunderstood.

Anyway, if we go back to the topic, which I find really interesting:
D&D 5e OSR backwards compatibility

I do think that 5e looks to be pretty compatible with adventures from 1e, AD&D and to some degree 3e if you look at the type of monster, the amount you meet and the pacing.

I don't think the monster stats themselves are compatible* across editions, but if you for instance use a 5e orc in place of a 2e orc in a 2e adventure in a 5e game, I think it will work out pretty well.

5e is made to be much more flexible when it comes to the type of monster you run into when it comes to level differences, so if you have to adjust encounters, you can probably do it by just increasing or decreasing the amount of monsters.

*As highlighted by @Dausuul in this post: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...bility/page2&p=6309936&viewfull=1#post6309936 the difference in to-hit numbers (and defences) is just too great, at least at higher levels.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ah, gotcha. You're conflating "wrong" with "misleading and inflammatory". I got an answer wrong once at school, and, man, those accusations of attempting to mislead and inflame! It's enough to drive a 7-year old to drink!

"Misleading" and "inflammatory" are emotional, accusatory words, whether you want them to be or not. One chooses them deliberately in order to to be inflammatory oneself.

That is the quastion posed on page 1... Was it a mistake where he miss read the info or was it an attempt to make the numbers say something he wanted?

 

[Umbran]

Umbran, I think what set Merric off is the fact that the author used his incomplete data to ultimately make what we believe to be an inaccurate conclusion

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. While he expressed his feelings quite clearly, he did so in a way that tends to shut down open conversation on the topic - Merric's statement communicated the fact that, if you disagree with Merric, he will insult your knowledge. That tends to generate either a chilling or an antagonistic atmosphere around the topic.

And, I have a bee in my bonnet on this - we are at an edition change, and many here will recall how ugly the last one was. It is important we keep in mind how we address each other.

...which comes off as purposefully misleading and harmful.

With respect, it comes off that way, *or* it is read that way. There are at least three texts in any communication - what the author thought, what the author wrote, and what the reader thought after reading. So, riddle me this - if there is a slant, are we sure it lies only in the author? Is suggesting that someone is ignorant the best way to make it clear the bias *isn't* on the reader's side? This is the weakness of ad hominem argument.

If you want to have a candid discussion about something- don't insult people, even those who aren't present. Even if you feel strongly about it. This is why Rule #1 is, "Keep it civil." If you're logically correct, you should be able to prove it without the ad hominem.

I'd love to see a study that compares average attack mods vs. ACs. But that is a big research project.

I agree. It is a very thorny question - what are you considering "average"? Are you considering it in terms of what optimized builds produce? Are you considering it in terms of thge range of what the rules as written can produce? Or what the majority of players actually end up playing? That last is fraught with selection bias and cherry-picking issues.

 

[Wyckedemus]

No, I'm not at all. I believe him to be wrong. I just don't believe he is attempting to mislead anybody or to be inflammatory.

I too believe that his conclusion is wrong. What set me off was calling the Fighter worse than all other fighters.

It's dangerous to state a conclusion or opinion that something is worse than everything that came before. To me that's close to edition-warring, if it is intended. The added complication, is that he tried to support that conclusion/opinion with evidence that it was empirical fact. Claiming that certain research is in fact evidence, may convince the casual observer that the conclusion is true, when it isn't.

My apologies for misunderstanding your position. But you made a statement that read like "So what if the fighter is purely worse, as he claims? You can't get frustrated or emotionally involved." It read like you were accepting his claim. We're geeks man. We love, and we love hard. A person cannot claim that something we love is worse than everything that ever came before and not have their claims and intentions scrutinized.

It's likely that he didn't mean for his words to be written the way they were. But if he's going to be providing that research to the public, he should learn to be more careful with the wording of his conclusions.

I mean no offense.

... in my opinion.