D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Snarf Zagyg]

But if as you said we know that "No one reads the DMG". But the DMG has solutions. This means the DMG isn't serving the community.

Again, "the community"!!!!!!
If you read the links I supplied, I went into detail on this. Since this was your reply ... I am guessing you didn't. So as a public service, here's the excerpt-

(TLDR- it's a joke.)

************

Alas, it appears that a few things may not have been readily apparent to everyone. The primary one is the refrain of, "No one reads the DMG." Now, there are many people that take that quite seriously. If no one in the history of ever has read the DMG, then what use can it be?

As such, and with an exceedingly heavy heart, I must now report to you the truth- there are, in fact, people that have read the DMG. For example, the people who wrote it (the DMG was not, as I previously reported, written by the mad mage Abdul Alhazred ... my researchers will be flogged until performance improves) probably read what they were writing at some point. And I must state that I might have read it at some point as well, given that I was providing pinpoint citations to actual pages. It might also happen that people may have looked up things like ... oh, how magic items work, or the Oathbreaker class, or ... you know ... stuff. So why did I write that, and why do you keep seeing this refrain?

It's a joke.

It's been a joke for a long time. At this point, it's just a callback. It refers to the fact that people on enworld will refer to rules and "how to play" and debate it endlessly, without realizing that the issues that they are talking about are actually covered in the DMG.* Of course, this isn't just true with the DMG- I remember a post that was six years after the publication of the PHB telling us that there was an option for customized backgrounds, and people still can (and do) argue about the effects of spells or how to multiclass mostly because they haven't read the text of the PHB recently. That's ... that's just part of the D&D experience. As I wrote before, on this topic, the reason why this tends to happen even more with the DMG is the following:
1. Generally, the DMG of most editions tends to be under-read.
2. The genius of 5e is that it appears similar to prior editions; the problem with 5e is that it isn't the same as prior editions.
3. Most people assume that (other than things like magic items) everything they need is contained within the PHB.
4. A lot of people still learn to DM by playing; so when they first start to DM, it's not like they read the DMG cover-to-cover.
5. Since so much of the DMG is filled with tips and variant rules and ideas for building custom worlds and adventures, a lot of people assume that it is stuff that don't need or won't use and never bother really digging into it.
6. If you don't know what's in there, it can be hard to find (the 5e index issue).

*Much like the truism that anyone that complains about someone else's grammar usage will inevitably make a grammatical error in the complaint, so too is it true that anyone who attempts to list a lack of features in the DMG will inevitably and accidentally list something that is in the DMG. ...or so I hear.

 

[payn]

It reminded me far too much of 4e (both in format and mechanics) for me to enjoy it. Combine that with a 3.5 player culture and its even worse for me.

None of which stops PF2 from being a good game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

None of which stops PF2 from being a good game.

It's not a good game for me, and how a given prospective user of a product feels about it is what matters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It reminded me far too much of 4e (both in format and mechanics) for me to enjoy it. Combine that with a 3.5 player culture and its even worse for me.

The decision to try to make PF2 a somewhat balanced, consistent, playable/'tactical' game, when the established fanbase of PF1 was seemingly there precisely because they rejected those qualities in 4e, has always baffled me. Yet PF2 is successful (by the standards of not-D&D). I guess Paizo really won a lot of loyalty? Either that or their fanbase cycled dramatically?

 

[Vaalingrade]

None of which stops PF2 from being a good game.

Some might say it's part of why it is.

I joined a campaign by the way, after playing the playtest a lot at Cons. I have notes, but it's solid and the breadth of options... yeah, I'm running an orc tiefling armor inventor with alchemist archetype at level 2. Being your concept almost immediately -- what a concept!

 

[Vaalingrade]

The decision to try to make PF2 a somewhat balanced, consistent, playable/'tactical' game, when the established fanbase of PF1 was seemingly there precisely because they rejected those qualities in 4e, has always baffled me. Yet PF2 is successful (by the standards of not-D&D). I guess Paizo really won a lot of loyalty? Either that or their fanbase cycled dramatically?

I always knew it was going to have to happen because Paizo is about pushing the design envelope and improving. I predicted they would end up going that direction the same year PF1 debutted.

 

[SteveC]

Yes.

DC 15 for moderate is too high.

Thank you so much for saying this! I have been discussing this since the game launched. It seems like an assumption was made that checks would have both Guidance and the Help action for Advantage on checks.

Since 5E launched, I've been adjusting DCs down by 5 in default cases. If I have players who would do the Guidance + Help on every check, I'd look at adjusting them back.

The default DC for checks is something that you dial in first as when you're doing design. And then talk about those assumptions to the players and the GM.

 

[billd91]

The decision to try to make PF2 a somewhat balanced, consistent, playable/'tactical' game, when the established fanbase of PF1 was seemingly there precisely because they rejected those qualities in 4e, has always baffled me. Yet PF2 is successful (by the standards of not-D&D). I guess Paizo really won a lot of loyalty? Either that or their fanbase cycled dramatically?

You're making an assumption that may not be true. PF1 holdouts might have wanted more balance than 3.5 (and I'd argue that PF1 offered some) but still disliked how 4e accomplished it. Plus, they may have liked Paizo's adventure support and shifted to PF1 to continue to make use of it while WotC bungled the roll-out of 3pp licensing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You're making an assumption that may not be true. PF1 holdouts might have wanted more balance than 3.5 (and I'd argue that PF1 offered some) but still disliked how 4e accomplished it. Plus, they may have liked Paizo's adventure support and shifted to PF1 to continue to make use of it while WotC bungled the roll-out of 3pp licensing.

As someone that was there, there was plenty of 'It's going to be 3.5 forever from here on out!' type stuff, but by the time PF2 rolled out, the same fatigue a lot of people had already reached during the edition change had set in and there weren't so many people eager to stay with the old.

Also the entirety of the old edition including lots of 3PP is freely available, so there's not a lot to be angry about whereas 3.5 only had the core and a few other things in the SRD.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You're making an assumption that may not be true. PF1 holdouts might have wanted more balance than 3.5 (and I'd argue that PF1 offered some) but still disliked how 4e accomplished it.

I had too many discussions with the 3.5 side of the edition war at the time to believe that. PF1 did clearly improve on 3.5, tho, I'll readily grant that. It improved in 3.5's existing direction, whereas PF2 changed direction radically.
Still, the point that PF1 was not just a reprint of 3.5, but a clear improvement in some areas is well-taken.

Plus, they may have liked Paizo's adventure support and shifted to PF1 to continue to make use of it while WotC bungled the roll-out of 3pp licensing.

Excellent point, I was well aware that Paizo had a excellent reputation for adventures, I let my own perennial lack of interest in such products (which I know is quite atypical within the hobby) cause me to overlook that.