D&D General There are no "Editions" of D&D

[glass]

PS - if can’t accept that you could misunderstand something, caulk up to my lack of ability explain it properly

@Maxperson absolutely could misunderstand something (as anyone could), but in this case they are making perfect sense and you are talking gibberish. So maybe re-examine your own understanding first?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Okay, but do you see how others may not share your viewpoint? There are a number of YouTubers and 3pp people who are looking at the game and seeing a new edition/game rather than just a new coat of paint on the old game.

IME/O, everyone on YouTube claiming a new edition/game was claiming that with the Origins UA or even before. They called 6e or whatever and have just found confirmation in any data they see since then.

Maybe you follow folks who didn’t jump to that right away, though.

But the fact some folks think a thing doesn’t make that a reasonable opinion.

 

[Mannahnin]

Either perception = reality or it doesn't. This is a true dichotomy. If perception = reality, then perceiving a 50 pound bag as 25 pounds would make it a bag that weighs 25 pounds when put on a scale. If instead perception(or more accurately misperception) is greater than reality as I pointed out in a prior post is the actual saying, then it would be perceived and feel like a 25 pound bag to the person, but the reality would be that it is 50 pounds.

Again, you are misunderstanding. I’m sorry I don’t have the skills nor desire to explain it better.

PS - if can’t accept that you could misunderstand something, caulk up to my lack of ability explain it properly

I'm going to take a stab at this.

Uni made a broad blanket statement about perception equaling reality, but it was specifically about experience of a game.

Uni's statement could be applied to other areas of reality, but I think that's an error. I don't think they intended to claim that subjectivity trumps a scale for measuring an object's weight, and trying this reductio ad absurdum has failed to engage them or win the argument because that's not a point they're defending.

They were talking about the experience of playing D&D*, which is one which has a great number of confounding variables which inevitably result in different people at different tables having very different experiences with the game. At one table it may be "obvious" that a given class is more powerful than others, because everyone at the table sees the PC of that class constantly kicking butt and performing heroically. But that could still be a class which is mathematically, measurably, LESS good at their function than some other class. Which either is not represented at the table, or is played by a less competent player. Or one which is nasty enough that the DM overcompensates and hits them with more threats, resulting in that mathematically more powerful character underperforming at the table in the experience of the players observing. Or maybe the mathematically-weaker class is being boosted by a synergy with another class/player at the table. Or by some house rule the DM is using (maybe Flanking giving Advantage? That's a pretty common one). Or maybe the guy with the weaker class happened to roll great ability scores and so his particular character objectively IS more mathematically powerful than an average example of the class, but the other players aren't taking that into account in observing that "Damn, Bob's Fighter is a badass character!"

There are any number of these potential factors which impact the experience players actually have at the table. And what they see and feel at the table IS their reality. Even if it's contradictory to what math and white room analysis would predict.

One repeatedly observed phenomenon that has come up rany number of times is that Very Online players often do detailed statistical analyses of classes, DPR, and mechanical features which are rigorous, internally consistent, and mathematically verifiable, but far enough down in the weeds that they're often below the level of interest or visibility in play for casual players. Even for a lot of serious players who are less math-inclined. Even with players capable of following the math (which usually isn't very complicated), experience at the table always subjectively looks different than an ideal white room calculation. I know that as a DM, I've (e.g.) sometimes dealt with a perception from players that their luck is abysmal and they "almost always" roll badly that I did not perceive to be true. But if it's true on enough dramatic occasions, it will absolutely stick in the mind. It will shape their perceptions of and experience with the game.

(*with maybe a brief aside about how perception or personal experience comprise a given person's reality much more directly than abstract descriptions or mathematical models, which has a lot of validity. Remember Hamlet? There is nothing good or bad, but that thinking makes it so?)

 

[Cadence]

There are many threads over the years that have debated whether getting. +1 bonus due to an ASI makes a character noticeably more effective. There are lots of things to discuss there - what is noticeable, what is the time frame, how thinking about the difference makes the player feel about it, etc...

I don't think I've ever seen someone claim it doesn't make the character more effective though, and I'm not sure there is any rational defense of that position. Claiming that the increase in effectiveness wasn't practically important is a different thing

 

[Jack Daniel]

It's pretty clear that however OneD&D changes the classes, races, backgrounds, or even core game terms, they're not changing the overall shape of the game. There will still be d20 checks with bounded accuracy, proficiency bonus, advantage and disadvantage, short rests and long rests and healing hit dice, saving throws based on the six abilities, a universal XP table that goes 0–300–900–2700–6500…

In other words, hallmarks of WotC stealthing a new game into our laps under the guise of a "new edition" simply aren't there. Third edition was an entirely new game with new mechanics. Fourth edition was an entirely new game with new mechanics. Fifth edition was an entirely new game with new mechanics. OneD&D does not appear to be an entirely new game with new mechanics; ergo, it is another instantiation of 5e and not a new edition in the way that WotC uses the word "edition." (And we can entirely discount AD&D 2nd edition, because the way TSR used the word "edition" doesn't seem terribly relevant to WotC's established paradigm.)

 

[Maxperson]

I'm going to take a stab at this.

Uni made a broad blanket statement about perception equaling reality, but it was specifically about experience of a game.

Uni's statement could be applied to other areas of reality, but I think that's an error. I don't think they intended to claim that subjectivity trumps a scale for measuring an object's weight, and trying this reductio ad absurdum has failed to engage them or win the argument because that's not a point they're defending.

They were talking about the experience of playing D&D*, which is one which has a great number of confounding variables which inevitably result in different people at different tables having very different experiences with the game. At one table it may be "obvious" that a given class is more powerful than others, because everyone at the table sees the PC of that class constantly kicking butt and performing heroically. But that could still be a class which is mathematically, measurably, LESS good at their function than some other class. Which either is not represented at the table, or is played by a less competent player. Or one which is nasty enough that the DM overcompensates and hits them with more threats, resulting in that mathematically more powerful character underperforming at the table in the experience of the players observing. Or maybe the mathematically-weaker class is being boosted by a synergy with another class/player at the table. Or by some house rule the DM is using (maybe Flanking giving Advantage? That's a pretty common one). Or maybe the guy with the weaker class happened to roll great ability scores and so his particular character objectively IS more mathematically powerful than an average example of the class, but the other players aren't taking that into account in observing that "Damn, Bob's Fighter is a badass character!"

There are any number of these potential factors which impact the experience players actually have at the table. And what they see and feel at the table IS their reality. Even if it's contradictory to what math and white room analysis would predict.

One repeatedly observed phenomenon that comes up repeatedly over time is that Very Online players often do detailed statistical analyses of classes, DPR, and mechanical features which are rigorous, internally consistent, and mathematically verifiable, but far enough down in the weeds that they're often below the level of interest or visibility in play for casual players. Even for a lot of serious players who are less math-inclined. Even with players capable of following the math (which usually isn't very complicated), experience at the table always subjectively looks different than an ideal white room calculation. I know that as a DM, I've (e.g.) sometimes dealt with a perception from players that their luck is abysmal and they "almost always" roll badly that I did not perceive to be true. But if it's true on enough dramatic occasions, it will absolutely stick in the mind. It will shape their perceptions of and experience with the game.

(*with maybe a brief aside about how perception or personal experience comprise a given person's reality much more directly than abstract descriptions or mathematical models, which has a lot of validity. Remember Hamlet? There is nothing good or bad, but that thinking makes it so?)

First, I appreciate the effort. At the end of the day, though, none of that is reality. It's entirely perception which can be greater than reality(by trumping reality in some manner) or perceive reality as it is. If a person or group is perceiving something that is objectively weaker as not weaker or even stronger due to circumstances, descriptions or misperceptions, that's a case of perception being greater than reality, not an example of perception equaling reality.

Reality always equals what is, and perception cannot alter what is. Perception can only get it right and perceive reality as it is, or else is a misperception that cause the person's experience to be greater than reality.

That means that if we have fighter A and fighter B who are identical in all ways except that fighter B has a feat, then fighter B is objectively stronger which is the reality, regardless of how any player or players perceive it or misperceive it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This conversation reminds me of the many conversations I have with my partner. She is an emotional thinker, and I'm a logical brained thinker. To me, facts are facts. They are indisputable regardless of how we interpret them. I rely on facts because of that reason. She argues that "everyone perceives a different reality, and that's what's really important. I know how I feel is real, so that is reality."

I admit I have a hard time grokking that.

 

[Mannahnin]

Reality always equals what is, and perception cannot alter what is. Perception can only get it right and perceive reality as it is, or else is a misperception that cause the person's experience to be greater than reality.

That means that if we have fighter A and fighter B who are identical in all ways except that fighter B has a feat, then fighter B is objectively stronger which is the reality, regardless of how any player or players perceive it or misperceive it.

How about if said feat never comes up in play? Never once happens to get used?

In theory Fighter B is objectively stronger. They've got an additional ability/option that Fighter A doesn't. But if in practice that difference never becomes relevant, then the actual at the table experience of the folks who played with those specific characters is that they're equivalent.

Or their experience is determined by some other factor. Maybe one of the players happens to roll a little bit luckier at key moments or on average over the course of their adventures, and everyone sees that Fighter be more successful and kick more butt, despite the fact that the two characters are equally powerful.

Another classic example of how external factors can mess with this evaluation, which I forgot to mention in my last comment, is Rest mechanics and implementation, right? Folks have had millions of discussions about this. Is a Paladin just straight up better than a Fighter? Well, if the DM makes Long Rests tough to get and throws lots of smaller draining encounters at the party between them (while still allowing a good number of Short Rests) that's definitely going to skew the evaluation of how powerful a Fighter and a Paladin in that same party are, relative to one another and in general. The Paladin might be a more powerful class overall, while the Fighter scores much better in the context of that particular campaign or in games run by that particular DM.

 

[Maxperson]

How about if said feat never comes up in play? Never once happens to get used?

I've can't really conceive of that happening. The feats are pretty general use. However, in that very, very corner case scenario, at worst they would be equal.

Or their experience is determined by some other factor. Maybe one of the players happens to roll a little bit luckier at key moments or on average over the course of their adventures, and everyone sees that Fighter be more successful and kick more butt, despite the fact that the two characters are equally powerful.

Another classic example of how external factors can mess with this evaluation, which I forgot to mention in my last comment, is Rest mechanics and implementation, right? Folks have had millions of discussions about this. Is a Paladin just straight up better than a Fighter? Well, if the DM makes Long Rests tough to get and throws lots of smaller draining encounters at the party between them (while still allowing a good number of Short Rests) that's definitely going to skew the evaluation of how powerful a Fighter and a Paladin in that same party are, relative to one another and in general. The Paladin might be a more powerful class overall, while the Fighter scores much better in the context of that particular campaign or in games run by that particular DM.

It's harder to rate entire classes against one another since they have so many varying abilities. Identical fighters with only one having a feat is not the same as Paladin vs. Fighter mixed in with how rests are done. One is basic math and the other is calculus.

Another thing to consider is that when comparing whole classes, much of that comparison is going to be subjective. Do you like superiority dice more than smite for example.

A of these things you bring up are what causes the misperceptions to occur and are the reason that perception is very often greater than reality. They do not alter what reality is, though.

 

[Maxperson]

This conversation reminds me of the many conversations I have with my partner. She is an emotional thinker, and I'm a logical brained thinker. To me, facts are facts. They are indisputable regardless of how we interpret them. I rely on facts because of that reason. She argues that "everyone perceives a different reality, and that's what's really important. I know how I feel is real, so that is reality."

I admit I have a hard time grokking that.

My wife is like that!