What 5e got wrong

[Einlanzer0]

ROFLMFAO. Did you really just quote me a fictional fallacy created in a RPG forum?!? Since you are obviously not informed on actual logical fallacies let me educate you on what question begging is. It is when you make an argument which presupposes the conclusion. Example: It is bad design for there to be gaps in stat usefulness because ideal design is for stats to be beneficial regardless of class, i.e. what you just did!

Your attempt at condescension is laughable. The original post shows how it is actually comprised of faulty logic. It's pretty sad to lord something like knowledge of logical fallacies on a social board as if almost everyone who posts on this board doesn't know what they are. I mean did you learn about them in high school or something?

 

[Marandahir]

The problem with the Oberoni Fallacy is that it assumes the ideal is to take the DM out of the equation and make a game that can run irregardless of good or bad DM adjudications.

5e's fundamental underlying principle is that, when you try to do this – WHICH 4th Edition tried several times – you end up taking away the quality that makes D&D (and Paper & Pencil RPGs in general) most appealing. Now don't get me wrong; I LOVED 4th Edition. The edition took a terribly clunky game and balanced it so that everyone could do cool things. In 5th Edition, everyone still can do cool things like in 4e, but the game isn't designed with a player-focus. It's DM-focused, because DM-fiat is what drives D&D. It's not a computer game. The best 4e games happened, in my experience, when tables let go of the strict interpretations of the rules and strict usages of powers and positions and just ran with the free-form of roleplaying. That's something you can only do with when "Rule 0" is made the centerpiece of the game.

Now, you can reject this notion and say the entire logical underpinning of 5e is flawed because it accepts Rule 0 as a centerpiece. But if the Roll20 survey results are any indication, 5e has by and large reunited the fanbase that was consistently splintered with each Edition turnover of D&D. People are coming back to D&D in droves because it speaks to what they know to be D&D.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Combat is key. Con doesn't play a vital role in dialogue because it doesn't need to; it's universally important when it comes to combat. The point I was making is that the ability scores should be as equal as possible when it comes to combat mechanics, because those are the only rules that are extremely fleshed-out and detailed; they are far less subject to DM interpretation.

Combat isn't always key in practice in D&D. It's one of at least three typical ways of resolving a given conflict (the other two being typically exploration and interaction). So you have the character who beefed up their CON because it's important in combat but then combat is a rarity because the rest of the party is low-HP DEX/CHA monkeys who prefer to kill in ambushes what they can't talk their way out of, and our CON beefcake feels pointedly that not all ability scores are equal. It matters very little if CON and DEX and CHA are equal in a task resolution system that rarely gets used because of the choices of the players.

Or more directly: presuming combat is all that matters is a mistake in a game where player choices and character abilities outside of combat can and often do entirely negate combats.

A fleshed-out, detailed system that requires little DM interpretation is not the sole arbiter of an ability score's effectiveness in actual play.

This mentality is a slippery slope (speaking of logical fallacies), because you can imagine a game that becomes nothing more than rule zero.

Such games have been published and are well-loved by many. Hell, informally, such games have existed for millennia. It's not a slippery slope, it's a design choice (and understanding why you might make such a choice and why you might not make such a choice gives some pretty interesting insight into Tabletop RPGs as a game medium).

My argument is that it's simply not acceptable, and logically faulty, to say "here are these rules, but we didn't care much about making them balanced because the DM can change them to whatever".

Since no such game has been proposed or produced, I imagine that it should be pretty evident that the 5e designers agree with you.

 

[Einlanzer0]

The problem with the Oberoni Fallacy is that it assumes the ideal is to take the DM out of the equation and make a game that can run irregardless of good or bad DM adjudications.

5e's fundamental underlying principle is that, when you try to do this – WHICH 4th Edition tried several times – you end up taking away the quality that makes D&D (and Paper & Pencil RPGs in general) most appealing. Now don't get me wrong; I LOVED 4th Edition. The edition took a terribly clunky game and balanced it so that everyone could do cool things. In 5th Edition, everyone still can do cool things like in 4e, but the game isn't designed with a player-focus. It's DM-focused, because DM-fiat is what drives D&D. It's not a computer game. The best 4e games happened, in my experience, when tables let go of the strict interpretations of the rules and strict usages of powers and positions and just ran with the free-form of roleplaying. That's something you can only do with when "Rule 0" is made the centerpiece of the game.

Now, you can reject this notion and say the entire logical underpinning of 5e is flawed because it accepts Rule 0 as a centerpiece. But if the Roll20 survey results are any indication, 5e has by and large reunited the fanbase that was consistently splintered with each Edition turnover of D&D. People are coming back to D&D in droves because it speaks to what they know to be D&D.

This mentality is a slippery slope (speaking of logical fallacies), because you can imagine a game that becomes nothing more than rule zero. I'm not saying there's something inherently bad with re-emphasizing DM control/power/subjectivity, but, this whole discussion represents how there is a hard mechanical structure that represents iconic d&d, and there's a reason for that (mostly relating to collective awareness of what D&D is and how to play it).

My argument is that it's simply not acceptable, and logically faulty, to say "here are these rules, but we didn't care much about making them balanced because the DM can change them to whatever".

 

[OldSkoolRPG]

Aren't you the one that originally accused Sacrosanct of "fallacious reasoning"? I then replied that you were actually the one guilty of fallacious reasoning. Your reply was to point to a fake fallacy while again using a real one. Now you claim that everyone knows what logical fallacies are and that it is condescending to inform you that you are indeed question begging and to explain why.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Combat isn't always key in practice in D&D. It's one of at least three typical ways of resolving a given conflict (the other two being typically exploration and interaction). So you have the character who beefed up their CON because it's important in combat but then combat is a rarity because the rest of the party is low-HP DEX/CHA monkeys who prefer to kill in ambushes what they can't talk their way out of, and our CON beefcake feels pointedly that not all ability scores are equal. It matters very little if CON and DEX and CHA are equal in a task resolution system that rarely gets used because of the choices of the players.

Or more directly: presuming combat is all that matters is a mistake in a game where player choices and character abilities outside of combat can and often do entirely negate combats.

A fleshed-out, detailed system that requires little DM interpretation is not the sole arbiter of an ability score's effectiveness in actual play.

Sorry, but the reality of D&D's rules don't really mesh with this mentality. It's not that other pillars of gameplay aren't important or are usually absent, because that clearly isn't the case. It's that the rules for combat are much, much more detailed than the rules for other pillars. This creates a situation where the DM and his/her group are pushed into creating their own style around dealing with the other pillars (which, in my experience, often becomes very vague and theater-of-the-mind). As such, they don't factor into the game's mechanical balance as much as the pillar for which extremely detailed rules exist and whose usage are the norm for almost all play groups - combat.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sorry, but the reality of D&D's rules don't really mesh with this mentality. It's not that other pillars of gameplay aren't important or are usually absent, because that clearly isn't the case. It's that the rules for combat are much, much more detailed than the rules for other pillars. This creates a situation where the DM and his/her group are pushed into creating their own style around dealing with the other pillars (which, in my experience, often becomes very vague and theater-of-the-mind). As such, they don't factor into the game's mechanical balance as much as the pillar for which extremely detailed rules exist and are the norm.

The reality of the game as it is played is that combat isn't always very important. So it'd be a mistake to presume that combat is where all "balance" (for whatever value of balance you propose) should be located.

 

[OldSkoolRPG]

This mentality is a slippery slope (speaking of logical fallacies), because you can imagine a game that becomes nothing more than rule zero. I'm not saying there's something inherently bad with re-emphasizing DM control/power/subjectivity, but, this whole discussion represents how there is a hard mechanical structure that represents iconic d&d, and there's a reason for that (mostly relating to collective awareness of what D&D is and how to play it).

My argument is that it's simply not acceptable, and logically faulty, to say "here are these rules, but we didn't care much about making them balanced because the DM can change them to whatever".

You acknowledge that the argument you are making here is merely a slippery slope fallacy and yet you proceed to make it anyway and conclude that other positions are logically faulty! You decide to throw a straw man in for good measure because no one is using the argument you are claming, i.e. "here are these rules, but we didn't care much about making them balanced because the DM can change them to whatever" The argument is that there are other design factors than balance and some people prefer a game that prioritizes those other factors over balance.

 

[Einlanzer0]

The reality of the game as it is played is that combat isn't always very important. So it'd be a mistake to presume that combat is where all "balance" (for whatever value of balance you propose) should be located.

My point is that combat is already where balance is disproportionately handled in the basic rules. Most aspects of balance are explicitly handled within the combat rules, and when there's an attempt at balance outside of that context (like with the PHB Ranger class) - it immediately becomes subject to criticism for being too finicky and weak in general gameplay.

 

[Einlanzer0]

You acknowledge that the argument you are making here is merely a slippery slope fallacy and yet you proceed to make it anyway and conclude that other positions are logically faulty! You decide to throw a straw man in for good measure because no one is using the argument you are claming, i.e. "here are these rules, but we didn't care much about making them balanced because the DM can change them to whatever" The argument is that there are other design factors than balance and some people prefer a game that prioritizes those other factors over balance.

What? I think you got lost in the discussion.