D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Micah Sweet]

Windows was, and continues to be, the market leader for the consumer computer market because there are very few alternatives and most of them suck for what the people want. Do you remember the operating system for personal computers that IBM released? No? You don't remember it because it was terrible. I can't even remember the name. There are some alternatives (e.g. Linux), but other than MacOS none of them have ever been particularly popular because their biggest selling point is that they aren't windows. Meanwhile, despite multiple attempts, Microsoft hasn't been able to extend their consumer product outside of PCs. On the server side, Windows Server is competitive but Linux is the most popular by a significant amount. Popularity in a competitive environment does mean that the product is good enough.

In the TTRPG market there's even less reason for one game's dominance because there's less interdependence with other products (software for PCs) where we care about compatibility. Nobody is arguing that popularity means the design is "definitely and inarguably right", whatever that means. But D&D is an entertainment product, in a market with other products that hit approximately the same price points, difficulty and target market. If D&D weren't good enough entertainment for people, it wouldn't maintain it's market dominance and continued to grow year after year.

So yes, I believe that in competitive markets with plenty of options popularity, and just as importantly growth in popularity year after year is an indication of adequate quality. Bestest quality evar? No. I like the game and it works better for me than other games I've looked into, played one shots in or read about. But I, and dozens of people I've played with over the years, like the game.

It's my favorite version of the game and I've never found another game I prefer so for me it is a high quality product even if it is far from perfect. For others, based on the popularity and year after year double digit growth? Calling D&D "adequate quality" is not exactly singing it's praises from the rooftops.

"Adequate quality for most people" is the absolute best I can say about WotC's offerings.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why?

Does 5e hand out skills like candy?

Are the skills not evenly matched with ability scores?

Was ANYTHING done to mitigate that?

man I wish you’d just actually say the thing you’re alluding to instead of constantly alluding to things.

Anyway, the point is that extra skill proficiencies is a non-combat class feature. Acting like it isn’t just because backgrounds exist is mind boggling weird to me.

Extra Attack would make sense for more aggressive Warlords, like the Barvura. It'd fit as a sub-class feature.
Smite would definitely be off-brand.

Smite as such, sure. A base class limited use damage bonus feature, is in line with being a warrior, and sets it apart from rogue and fighter for how it does that non-magically.

Being a warrior is not a subclass concept, it’s in the base class. I’d be fine with having dice you add to allies damage rolls, but frankly even the Bard has “support” too hard coded into the base class, the Warlord should not follow suit.

Leaving Exta Attack on the chassis, in the 5e design paradigm, would make giving the class enough support capability difficult - the Paladin manages it due to tradition, while the Warlord faces stiff opposition for the misfortune of appearing only in the hated 4th edition.

It really wouldn’t. The Ranger and Monk manage just fine. Extra Attack doesn’t take up that much power budget. Subclasses get it whenever the concept calls for it, and every class with it also has powerful features alongside it (at least in intention).

99% of the D&D community never thinks about 4e. At all.

The name is a bigger impediment, and the idea of a hard-coded support warrior is an even bigger one. Both of which can change without actually losing anything.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not everything is about people's dislike of 4E. There just isn't a big gaping hole in the archetypes that the warlord fills that hasn't already been subsumed into other classes.

I agree on the first point. I think the reason the warlord didn’t make the PHB is basically threefold; they weren’t confident in actually making a non-magical tactical class that didn’t make a grid feel necessary, Mearls or Crawford or both didn’t like the class to begin with or see it as not more than part of the fighter, and the name is just about the worst possible name for a class that’s ever made into a PHB, and one of the worst ever officially published for D&D.

The current come-back is being led by D&D, because D&D was the fad in the 80s.

lol jfc what a wild claim.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Being a warrior is not a subclass concept, it’s in the base class.

There's sub-class concepts that are much less 'warrior' than Paladin is.

Extra Attack doesn’t take up that much power budget. Subclasses get it whenever the concept calls for it, and every class with it also has powerful features alongside it (at least in intention).

Extra attack as a sub-class feature would be fine. The chassis just needs to be something that wouldn't get in the way of the needed abilities. Maneuvers could also be a way for a player to choose some more or less offense-oriented abilities, like making more than one attack.

The balancing of 5e classes as you go from fighter's multiple extra-attacks, to Paladin and Ranger, to things like Bladesinger are not all that consistent.

99% of the D&D community never thinks about 4e. At all.

I mean, 70% never play the game. And some of that 1% is willing to fight the edition war all over again.

I agree on the first point. I think the reason the warlord didn’t make the PHB is basically threefold; they weren’t confident in actually making a non-magical tactical class

that was an edition war talking point.

that didn’t make a grid feel necessary,

That was also an edition war talking point.

the name is just about the worst possible name for a class that’s ever made into a PHB, and one of the worst ever officially published for D&D.

An another edition war talking point.

Mearls or Crawford or both didn’t like the class to begin with

Mearls certainly seemed to let his personal prejudice against the class show a time or two.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's sub-class concepts that are much less 'warrior' than Paladin is.

Extra attack as a sub-class feature would be fine. The chassis just needs to be something that wouldn't get in the way of the needed abilities. Maneuvers could also be a way for a player to choose some more or less offense-oriented abilities, like making more than one attack.

The balancing of 5e classes as you go from fighter's multiple extra-attacks, to Paladin and Ranger, to things like Bladesinger are not all that consistent.


I mean, 70% never play the game. And some of that 1% is willing to fight the edition war all over again.

I just wish the 4e people could play their game in peace.

 

[James Gasik]

Then you have completely misunderstood what I said. Perhaps that is my fault.

I absolutely did not make the blatantly ridiculous argument, "Because lots of people play D&D, it's bad." Never. Not once ever have I made that argument. If you feel you can prove otherwise, please, feel free.

Instead, my argument is, and always has been, that you cannot claim that popularity means what they're doing is definitely and inarguably right.

"X is popular, therefore X is good" is not a sound argument. It is possible for something to be popular and outright bad. It is possible for something to be popular and a mixed bag, containing anything from great elements to terrible elements and anywhere in between. It is possible for a product to be popular for specific reasons, despite specific flaws (well-known or not.) It is possible for a product to be genuinely great for one particular use, and genuinely terrible for another use in the same general space. It is possible for a product to do many right things but still fall short in some ways, not necessarily being bad, but being inadequate.

You cannot simply say, "D&D is popular, thus absolutely everything it ever does must be good." But that's the argument I keep getting--including from you!

To use White Wolf as an example, while the Storyteller system games such as Vampire: the Masquerade were huge in the 90's, as someone who played those games extensively and loved them- they were terrible. Rules that were utter garbage, Discipline powers that were badly parsed or would say things like "if you make this roll at this difficulty and get this many successes you can do this ill-defined thing", Clans that were just flat out better than others (I'm looking at you, Tremere- even in-universe they were compared to D&D Wizards!), a combat system that broke in half the instant someone got access to Celerity- the game design on display here is quite shoddy, lol.

To the point that they decided to go to Steve Jackson with their setting asking for better rules...and SJG was like "what even is this mess?".

But the game was undeniably popular.

Just because something is beloved and popular doesn't mean it lacks flaws or weaknesses, sometimes damning ones- but if someone likes it enough, they will forgive those flaws, even embrace them. You see this in fandoms all the time. Nobody is going to ever argue that the special effects of, say, Doctor Who during Tom Baker's run were even acceptable- often the scripts devolved into moments of pure camp. But there are many fans of those episodes around the world to this day (I'm one of them), who forgive these flaws and focused on the strengths.

So can we put this "5e is popular so it can't possibly be flawed" argument to rest?

 

[payn]

So can we put this "5e is popular so it can't possibly be flawed" argument to rest?

I cant speak for everyone, but that has never been my argument. Mine has been that 5E isnt just popular, its the most popular edition, and not making fundamental changes is a good business decision (even if I dont agree with it.). On the flip side, there is at least one person who thinks that tailoring to their preferences would make the game even more popular than it is now. They could be right, of course, but I dont think they are.

 

[James Gasik]

I cant speak for everyone, but that has never been my argument. Mine has been that 5E isnt just popular, its the most popular edition, and not making fundamental changes is a good business decision (even if I dont agree with it.). On the flip side, there is at least one person who thinks that tailoring to their preferences would make the game even more popular than it is now. They could be right, of course, but I dont think they are.

So don't rock the boat, and as long as we can keep baling out water, the leaks aren't a problem?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I just wish the 4e people could play their game in peace.

I get what you're saying, but the edition war was driven by people who could have kept on playing 3.5/PF1 or OSR games forever (many of them still are), but somehow couldn't stand living in a world where someone, somewhere, might be playing a too-different current ed of D&D.

And, y'know, if 4e ever gets put to the CC or has the restrictive GSL changed to an OGL, maybe 4e fans who still can't stop whingeing over 5e not 'supporting' them, will know how they felt?

To use White Wolf as an example, while the Storyteller system games such as Vampire: the Masquerade were huge in the 90's, as someone who played those games extensively and loved them- they were terrible. Rules that were utter garbage, Discipline powers that were badly parsed or would say things like "if you make this roll at this difficulty and get this many successes you can do this ill-defined thing", Clans that were just flat out better than others (I'm looking at you, Tremere- even in-universe they were compared to D&D Wizards!), a combat system that broke in half the instant someone got access to Celerity- the game design on display here is quite shoddy, lol.

To the point that they decided to go to Steve Jackson with their setting asking for better rules...and SJG was like "what even is this mess?".

But the game was undeniably popular.

I'm right there with you. I resisted my groups budding interest in Storyteller until M:tA sucked me right in. The basic dice pool mechanic was inherently borked, especially how botching a high difficulty roll worked out. The 'systems' were wildly inconsistent. It often seemed like the whole storyteller system was just kinda a vague poorly-thrown together excuse for the "Meta-Plot." That the wolfies' own poll found the vast majority of their fans buying the books never played the games....
... and I seem to remember one of them saying something to the effect that "bad rules make games good." (Not a wildly original idea, that flaws in the game build GMing skills that allow GMs to run great games, regardless of system)

I cant speak for everyone, but that has never been my argument. Mine has been that 5E isnt just popular, its the most popular edition, and not making fundamental changes is a good business decision

Popularity isn't evidence of quality, but commercial success is comercial success. No fallacy there.
Don't rock the boat is a sound business decision, until it isn't. And that timing is usually only clearly visible in retrospect.

 

[payn]

So don't rock the boat, and as long as we can keep baling out water, the leaks aren't a problem?

A matter of perspective. I mean, are you making the case the ship is sinking? Id have to see some evidence to believe that.

Tony Vargas: Don't rock the boat is a sound business decision, until it isn't.

Right, and some folks say an iceberg is straight ahead, but I dont see it.