Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I lost more than one D&D product to mine as well.You haven't met my dog.
I lost more than one D&D product to mine as well.You haven't met my dog.
Yes. Was this in question? Improvements that require large changes do call into question "great" though.Great can be improved.
This is the same form of argument used in "it's good because it's popular." Here's it's modified to "Some/many people don't have a problem so there's no problem. That I had a problem I felt necessary to change it is not any evidence at all, because I'm assuming it's broadly liked." This is then used to defend 5e (or whatever game) as being "good" even while making changes to it, sometimes very large changes, because it's not working as wanted at the speaker's table.As I said earlier. The concentration rule is used as is in one of my table (the exhibit one) and at two others it was modified because we play a modified version of the game with the rules found in the DMG. What can be perfect for one table might not be for another. And here, you have a DM that uses both the unmodified version and a modified version of the same rule. What do you make of that?
this is pretty much what the whole thread (beer, wine, movies aside) is about. "If I assume that everyone is having the same experience as me, everything is fine..." mixed with "if it sells it works"This is the same form of argument used in "it's good because it's popular." Here's it's modified to "Some/many people don't have a problem so there's no problem. That I had a problem I felt necessary to change it is not any evidence at all, because I'm assuming it's broadly liked." This is then used to defend 5e (or whatever game) as being "good" even while making changes to it, sometimes very large changes, because it's not working as wanted at the speaker's table.
That is sort of like giving out an automatic C tho. It's fine if that is how you see it. Though, someone who is really into food (consuming and/or preparing) there will surely be a better quality range between establishments. They will also compare like for like items I.E. burger vs burger or salad vs salad with no personal qualifiers like affordability or health requirements. Those are fine factors in judging an establishment overall, but they are yours personally and not a fair judgment of the product itself.
It reads to me like your working backwards to confirm this for yourself. Does the separate existence of both official errata AND optional rules not suggest that there can be non-issues that some players choose to change regardless. Not to mention I feel as though you’ve somewhat sidelined the possibility of DMs simply rotating out rules/features over many games for variety’s sake. Or do you then believe that is indicative of variety being a problem/not “good”?This is the same form of argument used in "it's good because it's popular." Here's it's modified to "Some/many people don't have a problem so there's no problem. That I had a problem I felt necessary to change it is not any evidence at all, because I'm assuming it's broadly liked." This is then used to defend 5e (or whatever game) as being "good" even while making changes to it, sometimes very large changes, because it's not working as wanted at the speaker's table.
There is an entire karat system for judging gold quality in jewelry. You may not see it, but a jeweler certainly can. The aesthetic element is entirely subjective. Comparing it to things its not supposed to do like be hard or conduct electricity is entirely besides the point. They use gold because its rare, and thus valuable. It still has an objective quality as an item. It doesn't matter if you think that is useless or ugly.Both restaurant chains have high quality standards that leads to consistent food (whether it's good or not is literally a matter of taste), brightly lit interiors that are kept clean.
How else do you judge quality? People think they want jewelry made out of pure gold, but most gold jewelry is actually an alloy because gold is too soft and rings are generally 75% gold at most. My basic premise is that quality is in the eye of the beholder and what they value. Things that may add value for you, will in many cases not add value for me. Pure gold is a great conductor of electricity, not so good for rings.
No, because if I'm making a change it's because I have an issue -- this is not doing the job I want and that is. If the change is an official options versus a houserule only matters in the sense that there's some official recognition of a difference in use case. Doesn't really go to my points, much. Errata is a claim that the designers feel the rule is not working properly. How they make that determination is up to them.It reads to me like your working backwards to confirm this for yourself. Does the separate existence of both official errata AND optional rules not suggest that there can be non-issues that some players choose to change regardless. Not to mention I feel as though you’ve somewhat sidelined the possibility of DMs simply rotating out rules/features over many games for variety’s sake. Or do you then believe that is indicative of variety being a problem/not “good”?
How do you judge quality for food. Taste, materials(Kobe Ribeye is higher quality than round steak, extra virgin olive oil is higher quality than McDonalds fry oil, etc.), and health.Both restaurant chains have high quality standards that leads to consistent food (whether it's good or not is literally a matter of taste), brightly lit interiors that are kept clean.
How else do you judge quality? People think they want jewelry made out of pure gold, but most gold jewelry is actually an alloy because gold is too soft and rings are generally 75% gold at most. My basic premise is that quality is in the eye of the beholder and what they value. Things that may add value for you, will in many cases not add value for me. Pure gold is a great conductor of electricity, not so good for rings.
It reads to me like this is a bad faith take on what @Ovinomancer is arguing.It reads to me like your working backwards to confirm this for yourself. Does the separate existence of both official errata AND optional rules not suggest that there can be non-issues that some players choose to change regardless. Not to mention I feel as though you’ve somewhat sidelined the possibility of DMs simply rotating out rules/features over many games for variety’s sake. Or do you then believe that is indicative of variety being a problem/not “good”?