D&D 5E Just One More Thing: The Power of "No" in Design (aka, My Fun, Your Fun, and BadWrongFun)

[Umbran]

Agreed. To appeal to a wide base one must necessarily court mediocrity.

Ah. Yes. Elitism.

Is it ironic that elitism is a common trait?

 

[Umbran]

It wasn't the reading level. It was the writing! You'd fail any 8th grade writing assignment like that.

I'm just saying, when writing a wall of text, start with saying what the hell you are talking about in summary. Then talk about it.

You do realize that, after this statement, the rest of your piece is... superfluous, right? You got to to the point here. The rest is redundant.

 

[jayoungr]

The posts that I see complain about no new stuff posts are primarily in the warlord context.

In fairness, I feel like I see it almost any time people start talking about adding new classes, except maybe for a dedicated psion. It's just that warlord is one of the more commonly requested new classes.

Because guess what? Even if your "best swordsman in the land" did have every single "best in class" mechanical ability... that character is still going to roll a whole heap of '1s'. Your PC is going to occasionally look stupid as a swordsman, with or without having taken every "best in class" mechanical ability. They just are.

And that leads to another very common thread type seen here: "The D20 is too swingy! We should roll 2d10/3d6/4d5 instead!"

 

[Remathilis]

Bah, Humbug!

Elegance and minimalism has its place, but the term for an organism that doesn't grow is dead. We have evolved past the 3 classes and 4 races of OD&D (1974) by adding official options in supplements and periodicals. Well accepted options become core and the game expands to encompass new playstyles. Without official growth, there is no Dark Sun, no Ravenloft, no Eberron, no Ravnica. Official options keep things fresh, shake things up, and revitalize the game. The benefits gained from growing and adapting the game if worth the cost in grognard tears lamenting dragonborn in their Greyhawk.

 

[Fenris-77]

As someone who is a very longtime player of Warhammer I'll provisionally disagree with you there. When the Meta tilts like the deck of a ship in a storm every time the new hotness raises the bar it isn't a good thing. Great marketing by GW maybe, but not for the players. Carefully measured additions are fine, but adding things willy nilly isn't awesome.

 

[Umbran]

Elegance and minimalism has its place, but the term for an organism that doesn't grow is dead.

That is... factually inaccurate.

I mean, really, deeply, fundamentally inaccurate. To the point where... well. See, here's the real thing.

Every species has been, by trial and error, molded to fit into some ecological niche. With a few exceptions, a given organism will grow to the size that it needs to fill its niche... and then stop. If you take a human, and they continue to grow forever... that continued growth will kill them. Our bones and circulatory system designs have limits of body size they will support. The framework of a human only supports so much, before it becomes overloaded, unwieldy, and none of it functions well any more - something fundamental breaks, and the individual dies.

The reality is almost 100% the opposite of what you are saying above. So... not a great choice of example.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And that leads to another very common thread type seen here: "The D20 is too swingy! We should roll 2d10/3d6/4d5 instead!"

Absolutely. I know I myself have done it when it comes to skills (having just run my lasts games using 2d10 for skill checks). I didn't have to do it, the game would still be fine if I didn't. But at the same time I just like futzing with the rules on occasion just to change things up.

But at the same time, I also don't come around here accusing members of the WotC D&D department as being "lazy" or having "lazy design" because they haven't embraced my "obviously superior" changes into the core game (that was sarcasm BTW). As though my changes are only valid if WotC also incorporates them-- another ridiculous exclamation folks here are prone to make. The 'tsk tsk' that some players make about house ruling... that playing "RAW" is somehow superior than adding houserules, and thus they need the core game to embrace their rules desires so that they can only play RAW.

"Playing to win" and "Playing RAW"... two ideals that many people mistakenly seem to believe is the only real way to play. And anything the game has in it that is a roadblock to that is to be decried. I just can't help but shake my head at it.

 

[Bohandas]

In fairness, I feel like I see it almost any time people start talking about adding new classes, except maybe for a dedicated psion. It's just that warlord is one of the more commonly requested new classes.


And that leads to another very common thread type seen here: "The D20 is too swingy! We should roll 2d10/3d6/4d5 instead!"

those all have smaller ranges. If anything it should be 1d10+1d12, or possibly 2d11 using an RNG program.

EDIT:

strike that. I meant 1d10+1d11-1

 

[Lanefan]

Homework assignment for the day: analyze the post quoted below, in context where A = Anyone and B = Beer. In your analysis, give thought to variable C and what it might represent.

And on this thought above, I thought I'd put in my own little thought pertaining to the absolute necessities of why A+B should not equal C, because when C is added, it is adding far too much.

Better than to simply have A+B rather than add C, because as we know, C detracts too much from A and B.

In the occasion when C is added, and A+B=C is unavoidable, by no means should we add D or Y or X to this formula.

I find that when those darn Aliens from Alpha Centauri wish to add X, Y, or D, it makes the entire formula an absolute torrent of unacceptable ratios, graphs, and formulas.

Before you know it, not only was it A+B = C in the past, but now we suddenly have (A+X) + (B+Y) = C or some such, it can even get more insane as they continue volumes of additional reformations of the same configuration. Then we suddenly have an even more complex D(AX-BY) - P(CZ - B) = WV.

Why can't we just simply it to F(x) or F(z) rather than go through all the byzantine complications of continuously changing the formula?

It absolutely detracts from the fun of A+B=C when we add in other additions to the abstract notations of our ideas. If we keep it simple, anyone can understand that A+B=C, but how many really can comprehend that ~D(∞π) - (AB)ˣ = Y when presented in such a way that adds so many nonsense arbitrations of abstract notation?

So, verily you will understand my consternation at such additions to my formulas. I cannot comprehend how I can simply see A+B=C in the same light ever again. Though I'd love to continue, I find I am fast running out of thought to present, so will simply have to end this discussion of my dislike of additional modifiers soon. In addition, I am running out of words and vocabulary supported by my 3rd grade level of English perfection, thus I must soon make my concluding point before the neutron pulses of Orion's Belt inaugurate a fatal pulse of solar magnetism.

As such, I'd like to conclude by absolutely stating...A Goblin might not be able to kill a Dragon but with a fairly odd roll of 20 vs. the Dragons unfortunate day of only rolling 1s.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is it ironic that elitism is a common trait?

Yes.

I mean, if nobody likes what you like, you can be all elitist about it.
If lots of people like what you like, you can appeal to popularity for your validation.
D&D has fished both those ponds.