D&D General Why TSR-era D&D Will Always Be D&D

[Mort]

So now we’re at the stage in the arguing to argue argument where people say things like “the definition of words doesn’t matter because people can misuse them.”

Well, to that nonsense I can only say: quiche.

I can see from your tone and emphasis that you didn't have a crust on the dish and therefore clearly actually were referring to a frittata!

Such blatant misuse for the correct definition of cooking terms (which I have inferred from your one word usage and am therefore correct) means I now doubt all of your gaming experience (because of the corralive relation you see)

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is why pointing out fallacies is bad argumentation. They are meant to help you to reason better, not to toss in peoples faces.

STRAWMAN!

I win, right? That's how it works?

 

[Minigiant]

For a definition of "doable" so weak and watered-down it would fairly resemble certain popular beers, sure

Oh by doable I think you can get very close to the 4e original classes. Like I keep saying 5e is mechanically closer to 4e than TSR editions.

And no, they didn't decide those things early on--or else they did so and never told anyone. As an example, Mearls explicitly tweeted that there WOULD be martial healing in 5e, and if players didn't like that, they could simply choose not to play those options (or, if DM, choose not to allow those options). And y'know what came of it? Diddly-squat.

Actually they did. The design phase of 5e from the time of announcement to the first year of 5e was tons of flipping and flopping on design goals. 5e could have looked like 4 different things if design and development stopped at certain points.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Actually they did. The design phase of 5e from the time of announcement to the first year of 5e was tons of flipping and flopping on design goals. 5e could have looked like 4 different things if design and development stopped at certain points.

Remember when they said the game would be modular, and then people gaslit everyone that looked forward to that for years?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, im curious what the right amount of exposure is. I mean, D&D is a community game so I appreciate the dev blogs and stuff. Though, how much of it is the big picture and how much is just wagging the dog? What is the best approach to be clear and honest even if you leave some folks disappointed?

There's probably no single answer. Few things of this nature are simple enough for that.

But I think we can all agree that "just stop saying anything and hope no one notices" is almost certainly not the correct response most of the time.

Oh by doable I think you can get very close to the 4e original classes. Like I keep saying 5e is mechanically closer to 4e than TSR editions.

I mean, a Fighter who becomes a literal lord, who goes to war actually seems like more of a "Warlord" than the Battlemaster Fighter, in my humble opinion.

But honestly, no, I strongly disagree. There's nothing like the Avenger, Warden, or Shaman--and the """avenger""" and """warden""" Paladins are practically mocking the classes they claim to be, looking essentially nothing like either.

Actually they did. The design phase of 5e from the time of announcement to the first year of 5e was tons of flipping and flopping on design goals. 5e could have looked like 4 different things if design and development stopped at certain points.

"Flipping and flopping" back and forth...doesn't meet the thing I described. Nor does it match, as I noted, the explicit statement that the "warlord fighter" would have martial healing....only for the end result to not do that thing. The Battle Master Fighter doesn't heal anyone, it can't grant saving throws to anyone, and Commander's Strike is hilariously weak as far as ally-empowerment goes. The Battle Master is, in fact, better at imitating a controller from 4e than a leader, because it has plenty of relatively-useful tools for repositioning allies and applying forced movement to enemies.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Remember when they said the game would be modular, and then people gaslit everyone that looked forward to that for years?

But Vaalingrade, you don't understand, the game we got IS modular! It has optional rules!

 

[Oofta]

...

great ending to a post "I said my peace but this is pointless so no need to respond"

What else is there to add? I don't think they ever intentionally mislead anyone, there wouldn't have been a reason to do so. Some people want different things, that's always going to be the case. I seem to remember Mearls in particular saying things in a way that could be misconstrued. I think saying that they mislead, that it was corporate drivel and platitudes is insulting to people who did the best they could with what they had.

People seem to forget that 5E was a Hail Mary that was just supposed to keep the IP alive long enough for them to launch some movies. The fact that it's as successful as it is means we should be giving kudos to the devs for being flexible enough to make a game that worked, not insulting them for implementing some pie in the sky ideal.

 

[Hex08]

An informal logical fallacy (what's being discussed here) is not evidence that the conclusion is incorrect, it's saying that the argument does nothing to assist that conclusion. There aren't exceptions to this -- if it's an informal logical fallacy, it doesn't support the conclusion sought. It also doesn't disprove it.

Formal logical fallacies, on the other hand, are far more rare, much more narrow, and show the falsity of the conclusion in the argument. You usually only see this in very formal structures, like logical proofs, but they turn up from time to time.

I didn't mean to imply there were exceptions in the way you took it. What I meant was that, as I stated in a prior post, is that not everything that sounds like a logical fallacy is one. Appealing to authority isn't always a fallacy, sometimes it's referencing expert opinion.

 

[payn]

What else is there to add? I don't think they ever intentionally mislead anyone, there wouldn't have been a reason to do so. Some people want different things, that's always going to be the case. I seem to remember Mearls in particular saying things in a way that could be misconstrued. I think saying that they mislead, that it was corporate drivel and platitudes is insulting to people who did the best they could with what they had.

People seem to forget that 5E was a Hail Mary that was just supposed to keep the IP alive long enough for them to launch some movies. The fact that it's as successful as it is means we should be giving kudos to the devs for being flexible enough to make a game that worked, not insulting them for implementing some pie in the sky ideal.

I don't know if I believe this. Nobody drops a hail Mary to carry them through a decade while waiting for a movie to launch. WOTC put a ton of work into 5E. They spent a lot of time soliciting feedback from players. From the starting point it seemed that they needed this 1E fighter, next to a 3E cleric, next to a 4E wizard idea that was never going to work. Through surveys and playtesting they found the sweet spot and were able to drop the modular stuff and just make a causal game thats been successful for a lot of folks. The bet that they could drop the most difficult items and playstyles and get away with it paid off.

 

[Minigiant]

Remember when they said the game would be modular, and then people gaslit everyone that looked forward to that for years?

I remember.

And it's basically what I've been saying. 5e borrows SO MUCH from 4e that a rather faithful adaptation or new class conversion of the 4e classes and archetypes could be created with relative ease and a bit of time.

It's just that at some point early, it was decided not to be done anymore. And it was not explicitly said openly until recently.

That's why I keep saying that at publication 5e was a mix of 3.5 and 4.5 with a TSR paintjob.