D&D 5E The "Stop Trying to Impose Your Playstyle" Argument

[Guest 6801328]

Well, unless there's a rule that says "Thou shalt not post a thought deemed unworthy by the Almighty Elfcrusher," I don't see why moderation would be needed.

This is for you. (TL;DR: just read the second very short paragraph.)

 

[steeldragons]

I'm not sure I follow how if you're not using feats, you're sitting next to someone who does...How is that possible?

Yes. Feats are optional. As is 3e-5e-style multiclassing.

They aren't a "player-by-player option" to choose to use for their character or not. They are to be used, across the board, in a given GAME or not. They are an option for the DM to decide/declare [with players' input or not] in character creation whether players will have the option to use Feats in a given game/campaign.

Otherwise, how is there any fairness among/between characters?

 

[DEFCON 1]

So from what I'm gathering, the point of the original post is to say that if someone comes on here and says "X sucks and shouldn't be in the game"... it is a waste of time for someone else to come into the thread and say "Well, then just don't use X."

If I'm misinterpreting the point, please correct me.

But assuming I'm on point, there are really two different aspects of this that require discussion. The first is when the game already includes X, the second is when the game does not yet have X in it and there's still a possibility that the D&D staff could be convinced NOT to include it in the future.

As far as the latter is concerned... that kind of discussion is understandable. You don't want X in the game and there's a chance it still might not be? Sure, there's a discussion there. Hopefully the discussion's argument will actually be about concrete reasons why X might be a good or bad idea, and NOT just "Add X just because!" There's no reason to add things to the game "just because" some people might want it, and WotC has proven over the last 3 years that they AREN'T going to add things "just because" people demand it. So if there are pros and cons to whether X should be in the game... threads talking about the pros and cons are good.

But in terms of the former... when X is already in D&D... there is absolutely NO REASON NOT TO have people come into the thread and say "Well, then just don't use X." Because there's no discussion otherwise. The game DOES include X. It is IN the game. And it is NOT being removed. Not in future printings, not via errata, not in any other form or fashion.

As a result, the fact the thread gets created is itself a pointless waste of time. What exactly is the point of a thread where the originator states "X is stupid shouldn't be in the game!"? When there's absolutely no way to change it? To me, it is merely a "Hey look at me!!!" thread where the person has this compulsive need to tell other people what they don't like.

Which is fine, I guess. I mean, if you really have this uncontrollable urge to tell others your own personal dislikes on a message board such as this, that's you prerogative. But if you actually are going to CREATE such a thread... a thread that exists for no other reason for you to rant about what you don't like... then there's absolutely no reason to think you SHOULDN'T receive responses that are essentially telling you to stop being a big whiny baby. Because again... your thread serves no practical purpose. X exists. It's IN the game. And since there's nothing for anyone TO ADD to your thread other than just a bunch of 'A-YUP's! from other people who agree with you... what else are everyone going to say other than stop being a big whiny baby and just not use X.

And if you don't WANT to essentially be told that you're being a big whiny baby... then don't create a thread where you're trying to deny reality. You don't HAVE to create a pointless thread like this. Just like we don't HAVE to stay out the thread pointing out how pointless it is.

Is us coming into the thread "helpful"? Of course not. But then again... the thread has absolutely nothing to be helped with in the first place.

 

[Satyrn]

The larger point is that there are some folks on here who quite strongly promote their ideas as "the only way to game" and it is impossible to have a conversation with them when it comes to opinions of game design and gameplay. Moderation is needed because their posts often become insulting, derogatory and generally disparaging towards people and ideas that don't align with whatever their opinion on "a good game" should be. It's not in any particular rule violation, so yes I understand if you're one of those sort of folks who likes to toe the line, not breaking the rules but walking right up to them and leaning over the line a little bit should not be punished, but it creates for a bad environment when the only card to play is brinkmanship.

I have no idea if we're agreeing here or not. I was just making a bit of a joke abouf how Elfcrusher has no authority here, and I find it ridiculous that he posts a thread titled as a command. Your post was a good jumping off point for that joke. Thank you.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I was just making a bit of a joke abouf how Elfcrusher has no authority here, and I find it ridiculous that he posts a thread titled as a command.

Ummm....that's why I put the command in quotes. I'm not saying that, I'm quoting the argument that I think is specious.

But I will edit the title.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Really, the Adventurer's League is a big exception, but it's also such a small, small minority of players it's probably not working bringing up when discussing the rules, play style, or book releases.
Just a thought...

But is it really that small, considering how WotC bases some of their publishing decisions on how it will effect AL play? That sounds like the number of AL players and the financial clout they wield is far greater than you are giving them credit for.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So from what I'm gathering, the point of the original post is to say that if someone comes on here and says "X sucks and shouldn't be in the game"... it is a waste of time for someone else to come into the thread and say "Well, then just don't use X."

If I'm misinterpreting the point, please correct me.

But assuming I'm on point, there are really two different aspects of this that require discussion. The first is when the game already includes X, the second is when the game does not yet have X in it and there's still a possibility that the D&D staff could be convinced NOT to include it in the future.

As far as the latter is concerned... that kind of discussion is understandable. You don't want X in the game and there's a chance it still might not be? Sure, there's a discussion there. Hopefully the discussion's argument will actually be about concrete reasons why X might be a good or bad idea, and NOT just "Add X just because!" There's no reason to add things to the game "just because" some people might want it, and WotC has proven over the last 3 years that they AREN'T going to add things "just because" people demand it. So if there are pros and cons to whether X should be in the game... threads talking about the pros and cons are good.

But in terms of the former... when X is already in D&D... there is absolutely NO REASON NOT TO have people come into the thread and say "Well, then just don't use X." Because there's no discussion otherwise. The game DOES include X. It is IN the game. And it is NOT being removed. Not in future printings, not via errata, not in any other form or fashion.

As a result, the fact the thread gets created is itself a pointless waste of time. What exactly is the point of a thread where the originator states "X is stupid shouldn't be in the game!"? When there's absolutely no way to change it? To me, it is merely a "Hey look at me!!!" thread where the person has this compulsive need to tell other people what they don't like.

Which is fine, I guess. I mean, if you really have this uncontrollable urge to tell others your own personal dislikes on a message board such as this, that's you prerogative. But if you actually are going to CREATE such a thread... a thread that exists for no other reason for you to rant about what you don't like... then there's absolutely no reason to think you SHOULDN'T receive responses that are essentially telling you to stop being a big whiny baby. Because again... your thread serves no practical purpose. X exists. It's IN the game. And since there's nothing for anyone TO ADD to your thread other than just a bunch of 'A-YUP's! from other people who agree with you... what else are everyone going to say other than stop being a big whiny baby and just not use X.

And if you don't WANT to essentially be told that you're being a big whiny baby... then don't create a thread where you're trying to deny reality. You don't HAVE to create a pointless thread like this. Just like we don't HAVE to stay out the thread pointing out how pointless it is.

Is us coming into the thread "helpful"? Of course not. But then again... the thread has absolutely nothing to be helped with in the first place.

I'm specifically talking about the following:

"Let's talk about X"
"It sucks. I hope they don't add it to the game."
"Then you are selfishly imposing your playstyle on others."

It's that third bit that I have a problem with. It's basically saying, "Don't participate in this discussion unless you like X."

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm not sure I follow how if you're not using feats, you're sitting next to someone who does...How is that possible?

By "not using Feats" I meant not spending your own ASIs on Feats, even if they are allowed at the table.

I.e., "Don't like Warlords? Then don't play one!"

"Don't like magic stores! Don't spend your own gold there."

"Don't like dual-rapier Drow Paladins? Don't play one."

That totally dismisses the valid point of view that just being in a game with certain narrative elements can affect your enjoyment of the game, even if you yourself don't choose those narrative elements.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

4) Voting with my wallet. Eventually WoTC will publish a psionics book. I won't be buying it.
True, they won't notice the lack of my $50 because thier math will have indicated that there IS a large enough market for such a book. But who knows? Maybe if between now & then I can convince enough others to join my anti-psionics stance I cam affect that math.....

This one would really only matter if you could buy your books directly from WotC. They are getting all their money from the sales of books to the wholesalers and to Amazon, assuming they sell directly to Amazon and not to a wholesaler who then sells to Amazon. And Amazon is perfectly fine with selling WotC books at close to cost, or even at a small loss, because they hope the buyers will also pick up other books where they have a higher profit margin.

 

[Jester David]

But is it really that small, considering how WotC bases some of their publishing decisions on how it will effect AL play? That sounds like the number of AL players and the financial clout they wield is far greater than you are giving them credit for.

It's been commented by WotC staff that upwards of 9 million people play the D&D tabletop roleplaying game.

But, there are roughly 2500 WPN stores that run Adventurer's League. Even assuming each store has 20 regular players (enough for 4 tables) that's only 50,000 people. More people watch Critical Role live each week. It's only 0.5% of the audience.
While I think they look at AL and consider it, they likely consider streamers and online players and people who play homegames only far, far more heavily.