D&D 5E Anyone else finding character advancement pretty dull?

[CapnZapp]

On this forum there is a lot of:

"I want this."

"No, WotC knows better than you and you should not get it."

It is devastating for a positive forum debate climate.

What's the point of asking or needing or wanting anything if apologists that doesn't like it are free to shoot it all down using this argument.

There's no need to discuss ANYTHING in that case. Since WotC are successful and their bottom line defines what's right and wrong, we should apparently just wait obediently for whatever morsels they deign to let us pay money for, and we should be thankful.

It's absurd. It's useless. It's clogging up thread after thread with just waste.

TLDR If you disagree have the guts to say so, instead of hiding behind "It's not good for WotC's coffers" as if that was our concern.

 

[delericho]

There's no need to discuss ANYTHING in that case.

The reality is that there is no point in discussing WotC's release schedule on here. We might as well discuss the optimum frequently of full moons for all the impact we'd have.

(Actually, there's more point in discussing full moons, since at least that has some bearing on setting design...)

Since WotC are successful and their bottom line defines what's right and wrong, we should apparently just wait obediently for whatever morsels they deign to let us pay money for, and we should be thankful.

Nah.

They're a business acting in a business-like manner. So I'd recommend keeping your relationship on exactly the same level. Keep emotion out of it - if they produce something you like, buy; if they produce something you don't like, skip it; and if they don't produce, go elsewhere.

(There are some few businesses where if they ran into difficulties, I might buy something I don't want/need in order to keep them going. My ex-FLGS was one such (alas, they didn't survive 4e). WotC was once in that category, but no longer.)

 

[Tallifer]

Honestly, I'm running 3 different groups in 5e, and I'm finding the whole game to be pretty dull these days.

You need more of these sitting outside the wine cellar in the abandoned giants' walking house. When the dragonborn started running his hands over one chair, the snakewomen came to life and detached themselves from the wood.

 

[CapnZapp]

The reality is that there is no point in discussing WotC's release schedule on here. We might as well discuss the optimum frequently of full moons for all the impact we'd have.

(Actually, there's more point in discussing full moons, since at least that has some bearing on setting design...)



Nah.

They're a business acting in a business-like manner. So I'd recommend keeping your relationship on exactly the same level. Keep emotion out of it - if they produce something you like, buy; if they produce something you don't like, skip it; and if they don't produce, go elsewhere.

(There are some few businesses where if they ran into difficulties, I might buy something I don't want/need in order to keep them going. My ex-FLGS was one such (alas, they didn't survive 4e). WotC was once in that category, but no longer.)

You might rather have a meta discussion about what discussions to have.

I don't. I find that the predominant reason to have those is to shut down sentiments you don't like, instead of having to say "I don't like it".

Or, in simpler terms: asking us to not voice our wants, needs and concerns is entirely preposterous.

This is a discussion board, after all.

Back on topic: I wouldn't say 5E charbuild is dull exactly. It does desperately need deeper crunch, though.

 

[delericho]

You might rather have a meta discussion about what discussions to have.

I don't. I find that the predominant reason to have those is to shut down sentiments you don't like, instead of having to say "I don't like it".

Or, in simpler terms: asking us to not voice our wants, needs and concerns is entirely preposterous.

This is a discussion board, after all.

Sure, and if the discussion is fun in its own right, it's worth having.

But if you expect it to be anything other than just empty words, I fear you're going to be disappointed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

"You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate."

That's the definition.

It's not possible for me to exaggerate, misrepresent or fabricate someone's argument without attributing whatever I come up with to them. If there is no attribution, there is no exaggeration, misrepresentation or fabrication of their argument.

Sure it is. Arguments don't exist unless someone makes them. You don't have to name the someone to exaggerate or musrepresent the argument. Ergo, you can misrepresent or exaggerate someone's argument without naming that someone.

In other words, a strawman is about misrepresenting an argument to eadily dismiss it not about who made it.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure it is. Arguments don't exist unless someone makes them. You don't have to name the someone to exaggerate or musrepresent the argument. Ergo, you can misrepresent or exaggerate someone's argument without naming that someone.

Um, no. If you are replying to someone, you are attributing the misrepresentation of the argument to them by virtue of the reply. It doesn't matter if you name them outright, there isn't another argument to be misrepresenting. Context is your friend, man. Learning context will aid you tremendously in discussion.

If you aren't replying to someone directly and you don't name a specific person making the argument or argument in context, then you are making the argument yourself as nobody is aware of any misrepresentation at all. Essentially there's nobody for you to be misrepresenting.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Um, no. If you are replying to someone, you are attributing the misrepresentation of the argument to them by virtue of the reply. It doesn't matter if you name them outright, there isn't another argument to be misrepresenting. Context is your friend, man. Learning context will aid you tremendously in discussion.

If you aren't replying to someone directly and you don't name a specific person making the argument or argument in context, then you are making the argument yourself as nobody is aware of any misrepresentation at all. Essentially there's nobody for you to be misrepresenting.

Sigh. If this were the case, you could not strawnan group ideas or popular ideas unless you specifically say Bob said it. The common case, where the strawman is employed against a specific speaker, is not the only case.

Further, in a own goal moment, your above argument makes the case that quoting is attribution, which is what you where denying originally. So, if I'm right, you strawmanned. If you're right, you strawmanned. It's a fun morning!

 

[Maxperson]

Sigh. If this were the case, you could not strawnan group ideas or popular ideas unless you specifically say Bob said it. The common case, where the strawman is employed against a specific speaker, is not the only case.

Or, you know, you attribute the Stawman to the group or idea. If all you have to do is say something that differs from someone elses argument somewhere, then everything you say is an alteration of an argument being made. You're rending Strawman useless as a tool by removing attributing portion of it.

Further, in a own goal moment, your above argument makes the case that quoting is attribution, which is what you where denying originally. So, if I'm right, you strawmanned. If you're right, you strawmanned. It's a fun morning!

ROFL no. Quoting is quoting. Quoting AND altering the person's argument, attributing your perversion to that person is a Strawman. Nice try.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Or, you know, you attribute the Stawman to the group or idea. If all you have to do is say something that differs from someone elses argument somewhere, then everything you say is an alteration of an argument being made. You're rending Strawman useless as a tool by removing attributing portion of it.

You haven't shown this to be true. I'm confident that the informal logical fallacy of a strawman wirks on arguments, not people.

ROFL no. Quoting is quoting. Quoting AND altering the person's argument, attributing your perversion to that person is a Strawman. Nice try.

Ah, and the soecial pkeading shows up. Quoting is sufficient for attribution except when it's not.