D&D 5E Critiquing the System

[Don Durito]

If multiple people repeatedly misread your posts, then it's because your posts are not clear. You'll get a lot further rephrasing your arguments when people don't understand them than you will demanding they reread.

Just two actually. And one of them was you.

And I have rephrased the point several times. But dude, in your case, you were so obviously and completely wrong that I don't believe you really the read the post you responded to properly.

I mean in all hosesty, we all know that only about half the posters on here actually take the time to read carefully and actually think about the points being made before responding right? (Which is probably actually not bad for a messageboard).

Are you honestly claiming here that you read the post and thought about it before responding. Or, as seems more likely, did you skim it and then post a kneejerk response?

In any case, feel free to ask questions if something's not clear, rather than just jumping to erroneous conclusions. That may I might actually know what exactly needs clarifying.

You have that power.

(It's really curious how being 'unclear' so often leads to strident disgreement, and so seldom leads to expressions of confusion).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Just two actually. And one of them was you.

And I have rephrased the point several times. But dude, in your case, you were so obviously and completly wrong that I don't believe you really the read the post you responded to properly.

I mean in all hosesty, we all know that only about half the posters on here actually take the time to read carefully and actually think about the points being made before responding right? (Which is probably actually not bad for a messageboard).

Are you honestly claiming here that you read the post and thought about it before responding. Or, as seems more likely, did you skim it and then post a kneejerk response?

In any case, feel free to ask questions if something's not clear, rather than just jumping to erroneous conclusions.

You have that power.

Actually, I had to read your posts a couple times before I understood what you were talking about. You sort of jumped from one thing to another (although related) when it isn't an obvious jump.

For example, you were talking about cognitive load and also about advantage/disadvantage (A/D), and how it doesn't stack. Your post read as if you meant A/D didn't stack because it was too complicated to track multiple sources, etc. and players would have a hard time with it. BUT what you were talking about is the load created by having to understand, run, and such several different methods of benefits or penalties, when the A/D system already does that.

Why not have Bless grant advantage instead of a random 1d4 bonus? Then you have one less system to think about (that bless adds a random bonus) because the A/D system could cover it.

Why have Expertise double proficiency? It could simply grant advantage as well (FWIW, this is what we do at our table). One more sub-system would go away.

So, your point was if A/D stacked, a character under the Bless spell with Expertise would get to roll 3d20 and take the best one instead of adding 1d4 and doubling proficiency. One elegant system could over all these different sources of benefit. But, since A/D doesn't stack, you can't use it for all these sources of benefit. That means there is no point in casting bless on someone with expertise because they wouldn't benefit from it.

Once that was clear what you were actually talking about when you were discussing cognitive load, etc., it obviously made more sense.

 

[Don Durito]

Actually, I had to read your posts a couple times before I understood what you were talking about. You sort of jumped from one thing to another (although related) when it isn't an obvious jump.

For example, you were talking about cognitive load and also about advantage/disadvantage (A/D), and how it doesn't stack. Your post read as if you meant A/D didn't stack because it was too complicated to track multiple sources, etc. and players would have a hard time with it. BUT what you were talking about is the load created by having to understand, run, and such several different methods of benefits or penalties, when the A/D system already does that.

Why not have Bless grant advantage instead of a random 1d4 bonus? Then you have one less system to think about (that bless adds a random bonus) because the A/D system could cover it.

Why have Expertise double proficiency? It could simply grant advantage as well (FWIW, this is what we do at our table). One more sub-system would go away.

So, your point was if A/D stacked, a character under the Bless spell with Expertise would get to roll 3d20 and take the best one instead of adding 1d4 and doubling proficiency. One elegant system could over all these different sources of benefit. But, since A/D doesn't stack, you can't use it for all these sources of benefit. That means there is no point in casting bless on someone with expertise because they wouldn't benefit from it.

Once that was clear what you were actually talking about when you were discussing cognitive load, etc., it obviously made more sense.

Well yes granted.

But:
1) This is a discussion board so I'm thinking things through too as I go and developing my own thinking - I expect others to at least try and think with me even if ultimately they disagree.
2) There's always a tension on these boards, if you take more words to explain your points clearly in a single post, you just increase the likelihood that everyone will skim past and not read them.
3) I write, I'll admit with the second point in mind and the knowledge that people can ask questions.
4) I'll maintain that if lack of clarity leads to false certainty rather than confusion than people really do need to take some responsibility for the assumptions they make.
5) The principle of charity really ought to maintain that if you think someone is making a point which is obviously stupid or wrong, that you stop, read again and ask yourself if that's really what they are saying, and if it still appears so, ask a question to confirm that,

 

[Aldarc]

If multiple people repeatedly misread your posts, then it's because your posts are not clear. You'll get a lot further rephrasing your arguments when people don't understand them than you will demanding they reread.

For the record, I understood what he was talking about.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

If multiple people repeatedly misread your posts, then it's because your posts are not clear. You'll get a lot further rephrasing your arguments when people don't understand them than you will demanding they reread.

honestly...i too think they didn't read carefully the first time. i don't think his posting was confusing. but hey, that's just me (and probably most other people. just a guess.)

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well yes granted.

But:
1) This is a discussion board so I'm thinking things through too as I go and developing my own thinking - I expect others to at least try and think with me even if ultimately they disagree.
2) There's always a tension on these boards, if you take more words to explain your points clearly in a single post, you just increase the likelihood that everyone will skim past and not read them.
3) I write, I'll admit with the second point in mind and the knowledge that people can ask questions.
4) I'll maintain that if lack of clarity leads to false certainty rather than confusion than people really do need to take some responsibility for the assumptions they make.
5) The principle of charity really ought to maintain that if you think someone is making a point which is obviously stupid or wrong, that you stop, read again and ask yourself if that's really what they are saying, and if it still appears so, ask a question to confirm that,

When people reply in a way that seems out of line with what you are talking about, there is obviously some confusion somewhere. The problem is they (myself included) think they know what you are talking about but in reality you are talking about something else. This happens often enough on message boards as we all know.

But instead of expounding on your thoughts at that point to help ensure everyone is on the same topic, you tell them to re-read your posts. So in that respect I agree with @Bacon Bits . Telling people to reread your posts instead of addressing a possible confusion is a bit offensive to the reader because you are implying they either were too lazy to actually read your posts or too stupid to understand you and should try again.

Anyway, my point is when there is a misunderstanding on a message board, most of the time there is some cross-wired thinking on both sides. You could have replied, "Why are you addressing that point? I was discussing this point, in case I wasn't clear." so you could fine the source of the confusion, address it, and move on with a meaningful conversation.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

When people reply in a way that seems out of line with what you are talking about, there is obviously some confusion somewhere. The problem is they (myself included) think they know what you are talking about but in reality you are talking about something else. This happens often enough on message boards as we all know.

But instead of expounding on your thoughts at that point to help ensure everyone is on the same topic, you tell them to re-read your posts. So in that respect I agree with @Bacon Bits . Telling people to reread your posts instead of addressing a possible confusion is a bit offensive to the reader because you are implying they either were too lazy to actually read your posts or too stupid to understand you and should try again.

Anyway, my point is when there is a misunderstanding on a message board, most of the time there is some cross-wired thinking on both sides. You could have replied, "Why are you addressing that point? I was discussing this point, in case I wasn't clear." so you could fine the source of the confusion, address it, and move on with a meaningful conversation.

look at the previous two posts. i think there are only some individuals that didn't understand. otherwise i don't think anyone missed anything.

it does show that he was typing as he was thinking as opposed to getting it all organized ahead of time, but i understood it and i'm not the only one who commented that they understood it.

just saying.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I was one of the people who misunderstood him the first time. Because of the way he wrote, it seemed to lack coherence and flow, and so I stopped bothering. Others posted replies which I had considered myself, and he reacted "reread it" in a manner that implied he was too busy to bother trying to explain himself further.

I understand how people read his posts in a manner he didn't expect and got something else from his meaning. If they already think one thing, telling them to re-read it will more likely be met with hostility because it is a hostile position to take. It's unfortunate because it escalates and leads to nowhere constructive.

I am sure many people understood him the first "read through" but it seems to me a number of people read his posts and didn't. Nothing wrong with that. I've had to explain myself to replies often enough so I could help get rid of confusion....

 

[Don Durito]

I’m sorry but if I explicitly say something is a ‘simple elegant mechanic’ (actual words) and then receive a reply that attempts to argue with me by proving that very point what else am I to say?

Such lack of care is already rude. It suggest a lack of respect to read carefully enough to even rule out obvious misunderstandings.

 

[generic]

I’m sorry but if I explicitly say something is a ‘simple elegant mechanic’ (actual words) and then receive a reply that attempts to argue with me by proving that very point what else am I to say?

Such lack of care is already rude. It suggest a lack of respect to read carefully enough to even rule out obvious misunderstandings.

I thought the argument was clear, but, if others did not, then you may want to examine why your posts are hard for others to decipher, for the purpose of discussion.