D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Minigiant]

Just to be on the record.

I do not believe too much crunch kills editions or games.

I believe that too much crunch targeted at the same demographics kills editions and games.

The problem was not that TSR made too many books as much as that they sold the same books or the same people over and over and over and over again and didn't diversify the audience to get into new wallets.

This is basically why games workshop has changed their model of display in Warhammer. Because they were running out of middle class male hobbyists in the UKsphere to snag money from.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Fine by me. I believe I should not speak further on the subject.

You have to understand, that many people are looking to play D&D, not whatever this is.

Indeed.

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

By what measure? Because by economic measures--units sold and dollars earned--every new edition has been the "most popular edition." We've had current and former staff explicitly say as much. The 3e PHB outsold the 2e PHB. The 3.5e PHB outsold the 3e PHB. The 4e PHB1 outsold the 3.5e PHB.

Lack of backlash? Every edition has had a ton of it. Yes, it was more contentious for 4e. 4e was also the first edition that launched in a world with a widely-accessible internet, and the echo chamber effect was, and remains, severe.

Run the numbers, pick the stats that support your case, disregard anything inconvenient, and you can literally argue that any edition you want is the "most popular edition." Because, again, this conflates the measure of the characteristic for the actual characteristic itself: surrogation.

 

[Scribe]

This is basically why games workshop has changed their model of display in Warhammer. Because they were running out of middle class male hobbyists in the UKsphere to snag money from.

Uh no. I dont think that works out at all.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sinking has some secondary meanings that I think complicate the discussion and cause some kneejerk defense over things not said.

A better analogy would be pennies in the bilge of an aluminum solar water boat. The bilge is meant to have water in it, automated bilge pumps handle pumping it out (usually). The bilge can (and often will) even have salt water in it. The bilge on a freshwater or fiberglass boat can maybe* have pennies in it. When the bilge of a salt water aluminum boat has pennies in it however it creates a battery... specifically one that will corrode and eat holes right through the hull.

To a lot of people 5e has design elements that work s lot like that salt water battery eating through the hull and that seems like a serious problem because 5e removed a lot of once present elements that might represent the bilge pumps in past editions while it was chasing simplicity.


*I honestly don't know and wouldn't suggest testing it.

 

[Minigiant]

Why is this a problem at all? Because someone is going to not be the best at a given skill, because a Librarian/Skill Monkey class has it, and better stats for those skills?

So what?

Because many times only one person rolls.

Not everything is a group check.

Am I the only person at Session 0 who says that no player can copy another player's PCs skill set?

 

[Scribe]

Because many times only one person rolls.

Not everything is a group check.

Am I the only person at Session 0 who says that no player can copy another player's PCs skill set?

Yeah, one roll, from the person who built their character to solve those problems? I see zero issue with this.

Why would I tell players how to decide their skills? Thats on them.

 

[James Gasik]

Let me start by saying that a bunch of what you are writing as your discussion questions are necessarily tilted to get the results that you want. But sure, I will try and in good faith provide you answers to your questions; note that these are my responses, and these are possible answers, but I do not claim that these are necessarily the answers.



Because D&D is for the people. That means it needs to be easily accessible and grokable. As it stands, there are 12 (13 if you count the artificer) full classes in 5e, and innumberable subclasses.

That's already a lot in the base game. Additional classes are always available via 3PP and homebrew. In addition, should the need arise, they can always make a specific new class for a setting/adventure/expansion.

But too much crunch kills editions. They want to keep the core simple.



I have no idea what "love," means. As it stands, the most popular two classes are the Fighter and Rogue - both of them non-magical. As should be obvious, additional "love" (whatever that means) would likely start to throw things out of balance.



As you note, this would be hotly contested. Why introduce something that is both hotly contested and also varies so much from table-to-table into the game? In other words, why be intentionally divisive in an area that very few people complain about?



This is just the same argument as the "love" argument, repackaged.



This is just the same argument as the "love" argument, repackaged.

Without putting too fine a point on it, a lot of these points are basically, "Why not 5e, but 4e?" Sure. There are times I say, "Why not 5e, but 1e?" And other say, "Why not 5e, but where the heck are real psionics?"

There are small constituencies for various changes. But the point is- they are small constituencies. They are not looking backwards, but looking forward, and building upon a base that has largely developed during 5e.

Or, more simply- the primary market isn't you. And it isn't me. It's the people that joined up in the last ten years, and the people that will join in the next decade. It's okay that we aren't the primary market, because that means the game is thriving.

So the game will change when it changes, and until then, complaining about it will have as much effect as yelling at clouds. I can't argue with that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Okay. They can use the limited resource for a different purpose and/or have the ability to trade an attack as part of the attack action for a support move, which extra attack still scales up at level 5 by doubling the ability to do that.

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.

Why make it complicated like that? It gains nothing compared to building the class as what it is, which is a warrior.

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.

Okay?

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

I’ve asked for a source on that before.

that was an edition war talking point.

I don’t care.

That was also an edition war talking point.

I don’t care.

An another edition war talking point.

I don’t care.

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

The edition war ended. Just let it go.

The arguments you are reflexively dismissing “because edition war” are valid arguments.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, one roll, from the person who built their character to solve those problems? I see zero issue with this.

Why would I tell players how to decide their skills? Thats on them.

I as the DM have to deal with it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not arguing its better quality, I'm arguing its a better product.

...what on earth does that even mean? How can something be "a better product" and yet be not better quality?

How can you have "better" with no quality involved??? "Better" is literally defined, "of superior quality or excellence"!