CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
It has the same bearing as other opinions to the contrary. In other words: insisting that something is prevalent and problematic for you doesn't mean it is anything of the sort for anyone else.
D&D 5E Companion thread to 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part XV: The FINAL ROUND)
Gradine
The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
There's a lot of words here that are undoubtedly true to you, but I wanted to single out this statement because I think it's an absolutely unfair assessment of the design philosophy. You cannot accuse the designers of D&D of laziness without some serious evidence to back that up, especially since there are plenty of reasons why "rulings not rules" is a feature and not a bug. You may not like the choice, and I can understand and respect that, but to extrapolate that to cast aspersions on real peoples' character is a step too far.
It's not an abdication of responsibility. It's an invitation to agency.
Vaalingrade
Legend
So... we should stop discussing anything forever?
Vaalingrade
Legend
Ooo! Ooo! I know this one!
Manipulative nostalgia bait, which was the point during the D&D Next run-up?
Gradine
The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
I'm not sure that's a solution that would make anyone happy (except for maybe the mods
). Sometimes the point of an argument isn't to change anybody's mind. Especially if you're on a Debate team
Vaalingrade
Legend
I brought a tire iron the the meets!
Gradine
The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
Wrong, and on just about every account. Also, negative points for casting negative aspersions on real human designers in response to a post about how we shouldn't be doing exactly that. I'd have Johnny tell you what you won, but I think you already know the answer to that one.
"I don't prefer this style of game design" is not "these soulless lazy hucksters have worked hard to capture nostalgia while also being too lazy to design a game".
Undrave
Legend
Eh... it's a continuum that is debatable for various rules element, and it really depends on wording.
Some of the ol' Sage Advice column almost felt like giving bad advice on purpose to punish people for DARING to ask for advice when they didn't feel confident in their own skills.
'Rulings not rules' also puts a lot of pressure on inexperienced DMs and I don't feel like the game as purchased does enough to support people like that.
Mind of tempest
(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
fair but you have made the conversation pointless unless some wants o do a quantitative survey and they have not gotten around to teaching me that.
it is a problem for me but not you, the real question is are we in conflict or is this a false argument?
Gradine
The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
So, Hanlon's Razor suggests "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity", but I would personally add, "never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by a difference in preference." Crawford may or may not be the ultimate authority on the game he helped write (that seems an open-shut case to me but I also subscribe to the idea that D&D, like all TTRPGs, belong to us) but ascribing malice to such examples seems like more than a little bit too much of a stretch.
Also, not to be that gal that leans on appeal to popularity, but considering the vast increase in new players (and indeed, new DMs) and that these numbers have only risen throughout the years, I just don't see there being much evidence to support that position and a boatload that refutes it. I mean, they gotta be doing something right, no?
Similar Threads
