D&D 5E On rulings, rules, and Twitter, or: How Sage Advice Changed

[Ovinomancer]

I don't feel like its really our responsibility to inspire others to defend inspiration and BIFTs. We like it, so we speak out, but we don't have to convince people that don't like it that they're wrong. The existence of people the like it, in sufficient enough numbers, should be justification enough to keep it.

Sure,. but, I mean, "I like it because it's there?" That's not great advocacy. Please, I 100% support advocating for your preferences, so by all means. I don't follow advocating for something just because it's there -- that is extremely uncritical.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I do have to point out two things:

1. Just because you prefer trad games does not require you're oblivious to the design decisions in games of more modern origin; it can mean you're aware of them and just don't find them compelling.

100%. I like 5e. I can tell you why, and what it does and doesn't do. I also like other games, and can do the same. The comment isn't that knowledge means you have to like other things, it says that arguments are very couched in terms of experience, and a lack of experience with a broader set of games usually coincides with a lack of criticality in analyzing the ones you do have experience with. Much of D&D is received wisdom -- how it's always been, therefore how it must be.

2. You can have people who's only gaming experience is PbtA derivatives who still haven't the least idea of the design principals behind them. What you play and how interested you are in design philosophy is largely orthogonal.

True, but those people are a vanishingly small set of gamers out there. D&D is the 800lb gorilla, after all, and a lot of other game mimic it's structures, at least as far as core loops and authorities.

 

[Asisreo]

Sure,. but, I mean, "I like it because it's there?" That's not great advocacy. Please, I 100% support advocating for your preferences, so by all means. I don't follow advocating for something just because it's there -- that is extremely uncritical.

Its a part of our hobby. The reason why we like it doesn't really require critical reasoning.

If I'm playing uno with the original ruleset, I don't have to justify why I'm doing it to other people because its the type I enjoy. I just play the game as I enjoy playing it. And I don't walk around telling people they're playing it wrong. I just play my way.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I dunno, man. The general vibe of your posts is that the rules are terrible and tables are in conflict. That all feels very high stakes and its affecting me. LOL

BIFTs are terrible. They are tacked on and misaligned with the rest of the game. I understand the intent, but they fail to get there. I say this because I know of systems where it does get there, and can see both the similarities and how BIFTs are broken getting there. So far, though, you've defended them as things that direct play, when they cannot accept by consent, for which BIFTs are unneeded; you've defended them as roleplaying aids, but they're super simple and tropey and there's 3pp supplement that do this far better even within the structure; and you've defended them as a necessary part of the rules because they came in the rules, which is begging the question (an oft misunderstood phrase that doesn't mean it's begging for a question, but that it's a circular argument). Why are they necessary? They're in the rules. What are they in the rules? Because they're necessary. Ugh.

I am lawful and good.

I'm told that's annoying.

So am I -- engineer by trade and a nice guy in person. Donate good amounts of time and service to others. I don't feel that the rules of an RPG are beyond question or reproach. Bad systems should be pointed out. I don't think 5e is a bad system, I like it, but I'm not going to sugercoat it or give it a pass just because it's D&D.

You may be onto something as D&D is the only RPG I've ever played. (Like, literally ever.)

That's not a failure, although I encourage it. Other games can run very much like D&D (WFRP has similar loops, so it's easy to pick up the system, although, fair warning, it's much more brutal). Others do not -- Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel (for which I recommend Mouse Guard as an introduction), Blades in the Dark. These upend the assumptions that D&D rests on and do things pretty differently. You have some in the middle, like FATE (which can swing around, depending on how you do it) or Alien. These require picking up some new assumptions, but not so many that it's completely alien (heh). Although, I strongly dislike FATE for how it waffles about things, but that's me.

 

[mrpopstar]

Sure,. but, I mean, "I like it because it's there?" That's not great advocacy. Please, I 100% support advocating for your preferences, so by all means. I don't follow advocating for something just because it's there -- that is extremely uncritical.

I'm a member of teaching faculty in post-secondary education. Dungeons & Dragons is my escape from a long, hard day of being critical. LOL

I make the conscious decision to like it because everything is just easier that way. "Better is the enemy of good enough," and all that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Its a part of our hobby. The reason why we like it doesn't really require critical reasoning.

If I'm playing uno with the original ruleset, I don't have to justify why I'm doing it to other people because its the type I enjoy. I just play the game as I enjoy playing it. And I don't walk around telling people they're playing it wrong. I just play my way.

There's nothing wrong with not wanting to think about it. Perfectly fine. But, this is a discussion of how the game works, not what you like, so while you saying you like it because reasons is fine, it's not really adding much to the discussion of how the game works. If you have an opinion on that -- how the game works -- I'm keen to listen. If you just want discussion to stop because you like a thing and it's being criticized... okay, duly noted.

 

[Thomas Shey]

100%. I like 5e. I can tell you why, and what it does and doesn't do. I also like other games, and can do the same. The comment isn't that knowledge means you have to like other things, it says that arguments are very couched in terms of experience, and a lack of experience with a broader set of games usually coincides with a lack of criticality in analyzing the ones you do have experience with. Much of D&D is received wisdom -- how it's always been, therefore how it must be.

Well, the great truth is a lot of people don't look at their games critically in general.

True, but those people are a vanishingly small set of gamers out there. D&D is the 800lb gorilla, after all, and a lot of other game mimic it's structures, at least as far as core loops and authorities.

Not so convinced. I've seen Fate fans who just take it as a given that elements of that experience are the best way to approach things without stepping back and asking themselves why. And who flat out act like you don't know what you actually like when you claim some elements of their approach is actively unappealing.

Now, if you want to claim you're somewhat less likely to run into those than unself-reflective players of D&D, in an absolute total numbers sense you're obviously right--but I'm not convinced you're right in regard to the percentage of players of those kinds of games. To the degree its true, its only so because relatively few people end up in Fate or PbtA games without having wandered through some other kind of game first--but those that do are perfectly capable of not thinking about why they like what they like just as much.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm a member of teaching faculty in post-secondary education. Dungeons & Dragons is my escape from a long, hard day of being critical. LOL

I make the conscious decision to like it because everything is just easier that way. "Better is the enemy of good enough," and all that.

"Perfect is the enemy of good." This means that if something is good, not using it because it's not perfect is a bad idea. This is a good statement, that reminds us that sometimes you have to take the non-perfect solution and that's fine.

Yours, though, suggests that it's never a good idea to try and improve if what you're doing is sufficient. This is anathema to my worldview. I'm always striving to improve what I do. My job is about improving things. I just cannot agree with this formulation at a fundamental level. If your approach to life is that things are fine if they work at all, then, sure, we're just never going to have a productive conversation. Happy gaming!

 

[Swarmkeeper]

BIFTs are... super simple and tropey...

Sorry if this has been addressed but... you do realize that the BIFTs in the PHB and elsewhere are literally suggested characteristics. Right? Players can create any Trait, Ideal, Bond, Flaw they want - even ones that are complex and/or non-tropey. So... there's that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, the great truth is a lot of people don't look at their games critically in general.

Very true, and they shouldn't have to. I'm not barging into people's homes and demanding that they think about games, though. I'm talking about people that are here, discussing how game work, and that's when the bar should be minimally passed, yes?

Not so convinced. I've seen Fate fans who just take it as a given that elements of that experience are the best way to approach things without stepping back and asking themselves why. And who flat out act like you don't know what you actually like when you claim some elements of their approach is actively unappealing.

Yes, jerks exist. I've found that exactly same attitude quite often here at ENW when discussing games that aren't D&D. Sadly, there is a propensity for those that have moved away from D&D to be harsh in criticism about the game. For some, it comes from an honest place. For others, they've just swapped identity in the D&D group for identity in the anti-D&D group, and done no thinking of their own.

Now, if you want to claim you're somewhat less likely to run into those than unself-reflective players of D&D, in an absolute total numbers sense you're obviously right--but I'm not convinced you're right in regard to the percentage of players of those kinds of games. To the degree its true, its only so because relatively few people end up in Fate or PbtA games without having wandered through some other kind of game first--but those that do are perfectly capable of not thinking about why they like what they like just as much.

Nope, percentage as well. If you normalize for the number of players of D&D versus the number of players of PbtA, and took a percentage of who had played both games, the size of only PbtA players by percentage (normalized) will be staggeringly smaller than that of the same for D&D. Claiming otherwise suggests that PbtA has a strong, if small, market penetration such that it can be always available to players and that there is no significant draw to play D&D for those players. Given the market penetration of D&D, it's absolute number dominance, the number of times this could be true is much, much smaller than it is for D&D, even if your normalize for population size.

I mean, right now, if you took a representative sample of 100 people who have played D&D and asked them if they had every played (or even heard of) PbtA games, you might get 10 (recall that ENW is a very odd subset of the total market). On the other hand, if you took a sample of 100 PbtA players and asked them if they've played (let's assume heard of is guaranteed) D&D, that number is going to be nearly all. PbtA just doesn't have the market share to provide a stable and robust source for games such that you are unlikely to need to go somewhere else. Most PbtA players come from D&D to begin with -- the ones that are curious, or have groups that like to experiment, or that get tired of D&D and it's D&Disms. Both of the groups I've played non-D&D games have consisted of people that have massive experience with D&D -- all of them. Prior to introducing my home group to Blades in the Dark, none of them had played anything like it -- just D&D and games very similar to D&D.