D&D 5E Realism and Simulationism in 5e: Is D&D Supposed to be Realistic?

[Crimson Longinus]

One can at least argue there's a different between the statement "X is better than Y" and "I like X better than Y".

Right. And that's why having some terminology for this is useful. If I like X better than Y then it is useful to have terminology to communicate whether a product has a lot of X or Y.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yup. I like X better than Y, and don't want a D&D where Y is prominent.

And that's legit. But its a different statement than "X is better than Y' or "If it has Y its not an RPG".

 

[Thomas Shey]

Right. And that's why having some terminology for this is useful. If I like X better than Y then it is useful to have terminology to communicate whether a product has a lot of X or Y.

Sure. Unfortunately, people tend to bend terminology toward their own purposes, and its hard to stop (see any topic ever using the term "immersion").

 

[Oofta]

Damage isn't the only way to make a martial useful. I spent the last game I was in tripping things more often than not. Even if you flatten the damage differential out, its not going to change the fact that casters are vastly more versatile than a straight martial, and thus useful in many more situations. If anything your need to carefully manage long rests shows quite how strong this effect is, and how that's forcing you to work around it.

I'm not going to bother having this argument yet again. I simply disagree, martials work fine whether I'm playing the or DMing them IMHO. Of course if casters can go nova every round they're going to shine but other than that it's just personal preference and expectations.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If you place value on associated mechanics then obviously that's true. If you don't then obviously it's not.

A curious sidestep. I was speaking to how you were using the term, in the description you gave.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right. And that's why having some terminology for this is useful. If I like X better than Y then it is useful to have terminology to communicate whether a product has a lot of X or Y.

It's not useful, because you've argued about things that are dissociated being not dissociated because you're used to them. We just did this, didn't we?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's not useful, because you've argued about things that are dissociated being not dissociated because you're used to them. We just did this, didn't we?

Yes we did, and my assessment was not based on familiarity. I've played more 4e than 5e. I didn't bother to argue with you further, as historically that has not been particularly good use of my time. Nor I have great desire to participate in some proxy edition wars which this seems to have become.

Shame, as the original topic of the thread was rather interesting.

 

[Mordhau]

A curious sidestep. I was speaking to how you were using the term, in the description you gave.

Ok whatever. I’ve interacted with you before so this outcome is not surprising.

 

[Lanefan]

There's a clear bias that an associated mechanic that does a good job is better than a dissociated mechanic that does a good job.

Well, yes. That's the whole point: where there's an equal choice, go with the associated mechanic every time.

It's only when the associated mechanic is bad that a good dissociated mechanic is a reasonable compromise. This is placing a value judgement that ceteris paribus associated mechanics are better than dissociated mechanics.

Obviously, and again that's the point: don't use dissociated mechanics unless you have to, in full knowledge that those "have to" times are going to arise.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not going to bother having this argument yet again. I simply disagree, martials work fine whether I'm playing the or DMing them IMHO. Of course if casters can go nova every round they're going to shine but other than that it's just personal preference and expectations.

Yes, but blowing off how other people see it does the discussion no good. "It doesn't bother me" isn't an answer to much of anything.