Unearthed Arcana An Unearthed Arcana I would like to see - mechanical fixes

[Sword of Spirit]

So, I was brainstorming something a while ago, and I must have posted at the wrong time, because there was hardly any response. I'll bring it up here in case it's the right time.

From what I can tell, there are certain specific house rules that seem popular (such as replacing GWM's -5/+10 with a +1 Strength increase) or specific things that many people feel need house rules, even if they have different ideas of how to fix them.

I speculate that were all who are interested in seeing some simple house rules to address some of the most common educated complaints to start a project to work together, we could create an Unofficial D&D 5e Patch. This would be a relatively short document, but could provide a baseline that the majority can agree on as a foundation.

It would allow DMs and groups who have a couple issues with the game but aren't interested in extensive house rules (whether their own or others) to take it and go.

It would allow groups to tell new members, "We use the U5e Patch" and be good to go.

It would allow content designers who might like some of these sorts of rules to assume their usage and tell you that in their product with a link to the patch and instructions on how to modify the product if you don't use the patch.

It would help the WotC designers by giving them another point of data if it became popular. They could ask on surveys if people use that patch, for instance, to find out how well received that sort of thing might be.

Could we actually get enough agreement to put together something that a large majority of contributors would be willing to give their approval to? My gut says yes. The same gut that knew 5e was going to be hugely successful back during the playtest when many people thought it was going to be a complete failure. The same gut that told me the edition was going to be long-running when many people had the idea it would last a few years and then 6e would be out. That "gut foresight" is yelling me this is completely doable.

 

[Maxperson]

Could we actually get enough agreement to put together something that a large majority of contributors would be willing to give their approval to? My gut says yes. The same gut that knew 5e was going to be hugely successful back during the playtest when many people thought it was going to be a complete failure. The same gut that told me the edition was going to be long-running when many people had the idea it would last a few years and then 6e would be out. That "gut foresight" is yelling me this is completely doable.

I cut out the rest to save space, but I think that's a great idea. Now, to the question above. Are we going to come to a consensus about a given fix like GWM, or would we have like 5 different fixes for it in the document? If we are going with the former, I would recommend the following. A thread where the potential fixes are noted and discussed, followed by a thread where people vote on poll containing those fixes. 1 vote per person, and the top vote getting goes into the document. The lengthy explanations for each fix would be stated in the OP of that voting thread.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Once again, responses aren't Strawmen. A Strawman has requirements that aren't being met when you label responses "Strawman."

And I'm not unhappy with the discussion. I just don't think the designers need to spend time coming up with house rules when the DMs are better able to come up with house rules for their table.

Responding to someone as if they have made an argument or hold a stance that is not in evidence, is a strawman. That has happened every time I have referenced the term.

 

[5ekyu]

Another strawman? Is it a seasonal thing? I thought that was fall?

Where did I say "at my table"?

What I did say is, at many tables I know, because a given "table" isn't necessarily a static thing, and many DMs have multiple groups, and/or a group with a rotating roster, and/or multiple games with the same group that need to run along different assumptions (like rare magic vs common magic), or who challenge the way the game runs in different ways. Btw, it also matters for people who simply don't feel as confident as some of us do in their ability to predict the outcomes of a rules change.

Who said otherwise?

I think you failed to read my post.

Good for you?



Obviously, how you would handle their situation is irrelevant.

"Obviously, how you would handle their situation is irrelevant."

As is how you would handle thier situation or how broadly applicabke you consider the rules to be to how they play at their table.

All you are establishing with your round-abouts and reversals is that apparently no opinion,matters outside its own sphere.

Which is fine but if thats the point why chalkenge my pist about how little i care about broad applicability for rules at my table?

Contentious for its own sake?

Odd, but hey. If that floats your boat, you may have new ship rules for that boat in a few months.



Definitely way before we see magical mystety fixes.

 

[Maxperson]

Responding to someone as if they have made an argument or hold a stance that is not in evidence, is a strawman. That has happened every time I have referenced the term.

By every time, I've seen it happen no times. Just because people aren't allowing you to pigeonhole them into a small box, doesn't mean that they are altering your argument and then responding to said alteration, which is what is required for a Strawman.

You are talking about broadly applicable rules changes, but the vast majority of games are single group/table games. That means that broadly applicable rules changes are only really appropriate if they affect a majority of these individual tables, which brings us right back to what people have been telling you in RESPONSE(not Strawman). Individual DMs are much better able to create a rule for their table than WotC is able to create a broadly applicable rule. Talking about individual tables is on topic and related to your posts, without being a Strawman.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

"Of course it matters. For people who have multiple groups for which they DM. It's 100% reasonable to not want to track a whole set of houserules for every group/game. "

As a response to how much the broad applicabily of a ruke matters "when it comes to my table" this is a baffling response.

Since my response wasn't "when it comes to my table", this is a strawman. I don't mean exact wording, either. That isn't even vaguely in the spirit of my statement.

Yeah, but they are also the creators of the rules you all think are bad and need editing.

Best of luck hoping that Mike and Co. guess at your solutions just so you can say "the rules I use were written by professional game designers!"

Since neither I, nor anyone else, said anything to the effect that the rules are bad, nor any of the other nonsense presented here, this is a strawman.

By every time, I've seen it happen no times. Just because people aren't allowing you to pigeonhole them into a small box, doesn't mean that they are altering your argument and then responding to said alteration, which is what is required for a Strawman.

You are talking about broadly applicable rules changes, but the vast majority of games are single group/table games. That means that broadly applicable rules changes are only really appropriate if they affect a majority of these individual tables, which brings us right back to what people have been telling you in RESPONSE(not Strawman). Individual DMs are much better able to create a rule for their table than WotC is able to create a broadly applicable rule. Talking about individual tables is on topic and related to your posts, without being a Strawman.

And here, you have put up the straw man of a position that individual tables are what I've been refering to as straw man arguements, and then knocked that straw man down, pretending you've refuting my claim that straw men are being deployed in this thread. It's straw man inception!

I never claimed that the arguments based on individual tables are straw man arguments, max. I claimed that the posts I quoted here set up straw men to knock down.

By the way, directly altering an argument isn't a requirement of the straw man argument. Intentionally misunderstanding the point of an argument and arguing against that percieved point also qualifies, as does inventing an argument or position from whole cloth to pretend the other person is supporting, and then refuting that.

Any time you "refute" an argument or position not made or held by the person you're responding to, you are deploying a straw man for yourself to knock down.

 

[Maxperson]

And here, you have put up the straw man of a position that individual tables are what I've been refering to as straw man arguements, and then knocked that straw man down, pretending you've refuting my claim that straw men are being deployed in this thread. It's straw man inception!

I never claimed that the arguments based on individual tables are straw man arguments, max. I claimed that the posts I quoted here set up straw men to knock down.

It's right here out of your own mouth.

Another strawman? Is it a seasonal thing? I thought that was fall?

Where did I say "at my table"?

What I did say is, at many tables I know, because a given "table" isn't necessarily a static thing, and many DMs have multiple groups, and/or a group with a rotating roster, and/or multiple games with the same group that need to run along different assumptions (like rare magic vs common magic), or who challenge the way the game runs in different ways. Btw, it also matters for people who simply don't feel as confident as some of us do in their ability to predict the outcomes of a rules change.

Since "at my table" is synonymous with "individual table," you have accused him of a Strawman referring to individual tables. I suppose it's possible that you just aren't speaking clearly, but in that case what I'm doing isn't a Strawman, since we can't know what your actual argument is.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's right here out of your own mouth.



Since "at my table" is synonymous with "individual table," you have accused him of a Strawman referring to individual tables. I suppose it's possible that you just aren't speaking clearly, but in that case what I'm doing isn't a Strawman, since we can't know what your actual argument is.

You...didn't read the whole exchange, did you?

They said "at my table", attributing it falsely to me. I spoke about gamers I know in general.

I've made an example of my table, in one post, while very clearly using it as an example of the kinds of tables where the proposed product would be useful, and what kind of DMs would want to see it, but that's it. I compared myself and my best friend, who are both DMs, and how while I've no need of something like the OP wants, I support it because my friend would love it.

In the post I was responding to, that example wasn't even being discussed, though, so it certainly doesn't seem to have informed the argument they were making. Indeed, they quoted something I said, and then presented a straw man version of it to refute, in the same post.

 

[Maxperson]

You...didn't read the whole exchange, did you?

They said "at my table", attributing it falsely to me. I spoke about gamers I know in general.

Do you not have a table? If I say, "At your table you are the best one to create a house rule.", I've done nothing to alter any of your arguments, and unless you don't have a table, I'm not falsely attributing anything to you. It's simply a response. In no way, shape or form am I taking your argument and saying that you have said "At your table."

I've made an example of my table, in one post, while very clearly using it as an example of the kinds of tables where the proposed product would be useful, and what kind of DMs would want to see it, but that's it. I compared myself and my best friend, who are both DMs, and how while I've no need of something like the OP wants, I support it because my friend would love it.

In the post I was responding to, that example wasn't even being discussed, though, so it certainly doesn't seem to have informed the argument they were making. Indeed, they quoted something I said, and then presented a straw man version of it to refute, in the same post.

Ahh, so you DO have a table. Then "at my table" attributes nothing to you falsely.

It's all well and good that you are arguing for broad house rules, but when we respond that DMs are the ones best able to make house rules for their tables, it's because the DMs have tables and we believe that they are best suited to come up with a rule for their game. It doesn't alter your argument. It doesn't falsely attribute anything to you. We aren't responding to anything that is false or altered from your argument. We are simply disagreeing with your statement and giving the reasons why. That does not a Strawman make.

Anyway, I'm done arguing about what is or is not a Strawman here in this thread. You can continue to misuse the term, or you can figure out how to use it correctly. It's up to you.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Do you not have a table? If I say, "At your table you are the best one to create a house rule.", I've done nothing to alter any of your arguments, and unless you don't have a table, I'm not falsely attributing anything to you. It's simply a response. In no way, shape or form am I taking your argument and saying that you have said "At your table."



Ahh, so you DO have a table. Then "at my table" attributes nothing to you falsely.

It's all well and good that you are arguing for broad house rules, but when we respond that DMs are the ones best able to make house rules for their tables, it's because the DMs have tables and we believe that they are best suited to come up with a rule for their game. It doesn't alter your argument. It doesn't falsely attribute anything to you. We aren't responding to anything that is false or altered from your argument. We are simply disagreeing with your statement and giving the reasons why. That does not a Strawman make.

Anyway, I'm done arguing about what is or is not a Strawman here in this thread. You can continue to misuse the term, or you can figure out how to use it correctly. It's up to you.

Max. Dude. Read what was said.

At this point I think you may be intentionally being obtuse or dishonest in this exchange.

It makes more sense than you just genuinely not understanding anything I’ve said to you.