D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[edhel]

others see potental in evolution and refinement of past ways

The thing with D&D is that it's not refining the past ways but forgetting them wholesale. D&D used to have procedures for dungeons, and e.g. reigning your domains as a higher level character. The focus of the game has shifted so it's a different type of game. I'm not saying it's good or bad but as an observation. I used to eat strawberry cake, and now I'm drinking a wheat-based milkshake. It's just a different thing.
Even changing xp from treasure to monster xp changed the dynamics of the game, and how players/characters approach challenges in-game. And that then informs adventure design etc.

Rolling against THACO or AC isn't that crucial but what's happening in-game is. Luckily we have OSR for those who want it, and countless indie products.

As for truth, spiritually it's aligning with dharma/dao/Logos/reality. In the context of the game, if your aim is "to change" then anything you change to anything else without a higher purpose or philosophy is a success. I see change as a strategy, not a goal, so constant evolution or refinement doesn't make any sense without a context. There's no solutions anyway, just trade-offs between things. The trade-offs between the simplicity in characters (old D&D) vs. simplistic complexity of 5E characters is that originally you tried to solve challenges by thinking them through in-person, and now you try to solve challenges using the characters abilities (using spells, or pressing buttons on your character sheet like "Perception" or "Intimidation").

 

[rhythmsoundmotion]

All the boobies in the 1st edition artwork were not intended to make women feel unwelcome. Nevertheless, that was the effect.

Gatekeeping can be, and usually is, unintentional. Most people don’t deliberately set out to be horrible.

Don’t remember these guys. Maybe in a splat book?

 

[billd91]

I mean "conservatism" as in resistance to change.

That's not what conservatism is though. It's about preserving what works and what is true.

Well, whether that's strictly true or not is going to depend a lot on your bias toward conservatism. Because the definition quoted by MonsterEnvy here:

Conservatism: "commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation."

is very much a widespread and commonly agreed definition of the term. It is most definitely not simply preserving what works and is true because what may be replacing things may also work and also be true.

 

[The Firebird]

What if the person says.. but I just personally enjoy cheesecake art?

Faolyn posted a great response to this already. For my own opinion -- I'd question their taste and say I don't understand it. I think it's reasonable for a company like WotC to move away from those depictions. But I don't think their preferences make them a bad person or are necessarily morally flawed.

Another example is the use of "species". Personally I don't use the old term, because I think its important for inclusivity. I think it's great that the industry has largely moved on. But I know many people who prefer it, and I don't hold it against them.

 

[Remathilis]

The trade-offs between the simplicity in characters (old D&D) vs. simplistic complexity of 5E characters is that originally you tried to solve challenges by thinking them through in-person, and now you try to solve challenges using the characters abilities (using spells, or pressing buttons on your character sheet like "Perception" or "Intimidation").

I know its a popular belief that D&D getting an actual skill system somehow killed off problem solving in game, but I have never seen this as true. Here is my long-winded metaphor as to why.

Ever play Zork (or any text-based adventure game)? The kind where the game acts as a narrator and you have to type in commands like "pick up sword" or "use sword with goblin" to do things? Those games are notoriously difficult because technically speaking, you can type anything you want in the prompt, but the game only recognizes certain commands, so much of the complexity of the game is determining the correct command to get the action you desire. OS play is like that. You have a prompt, but you don't know any of the commands. You are given unlimited options, but no direction on what to do. You have to guess what will or won't work.

In contrast, ever play a point-and-click game like Monkey Island or Maniac Mansion? The game gives you a list of commands you can use. It sometimes even tells you what commands will work with a given object (use sword, take key, talk to monkey) and thus players are given a direction (though not a solution, those games were still hard) on what they can or can't do. Skills work like that. They give players a list of options they can use (intimidate goblin, hide from guard, persuade barmaid) but its still up to the player to decide when and how to use them. The provide guidance as to what a character can do, or at least a menu of options.

The analogy isn't perfect because D&D still has the greatest advantage a computer hasn't gotten to yet: a live DM who can interpret both commands and intent and allows for options not listed in the command (skill) list. But the general idea is the same. Skills provide players a guided way to interact with the world, while older D&D just provided an open prompt and let the player decide what command to issue. The big difference is that, for most people, that guidance is useful for giving focus to the character's actions, while such open ended prompts can leave players overwhelmed and locked in analysis paralysis.

Which is why I don't see skills as limiting, but focusing.

 

[Hussar]

I agree, if one is deliberately designing a game to exclude people. But I don't think that's why people like Thaco.

People who like Thaco genuinely like it. Maybe they find it easier--I don't get that, but if they say it perhaps it is true for them. Maybe they are more familiar with it. Maybe they have an emotional attachment to it. It reminds them of playing d&d as a kid, which ascending AC can never do.

There's any number of legitimate reasons to prefer Thaco that have nothing to do with the desire to exclude.

And reading in a desire to exclude when people are just choosing the mechanic they like best is uncharitable, and starts putting preferences into a moral hierarchy. It takes us from statements like "I don't understand your preferences" to "your preferences are morally suspect". Which is a lot to ascribe to an order of operations.

I wasn’t specifically talking about THAC0 to be honest. I was responding to @Lanefan’s point that the game should be targeted to college age players or older.

There seems to be a couple of conversations going on. I really couldn’t care less about THAC0 because that’s a dead mechanic that’s been buried for decades.

 

[Hussar]

Problem: "trying to prove something" and "opinions" don't go together.

Opinions are our positions or judgements we have formed that are NOT based on facts or knowledge. By definition, opinions will always fall short of being objectively provable. So, no, actual evidence for opinions is not required.

That’s not true at all. Opinions absolutely should be based in facts. Opinion is not the same as preference.

I think x is true because of a, b and c, is an opinion based in facts. I think x is true because I like it is also an opinion. Or, I believe x to be true based on something that is demonstrably false is also an opinion. But the first has some value. The second doesn’t. And the third is even worse because that’s generally where the frustration starts in. Someone insisting on staking out their hill even after being shown actual facts.

And the idea that all three should be held equal is one of the bigger problems in society today.

Call me snarky all you like but you insisted that I’m wrong for not treating all opinions as equal. You then added in the notion of other discussions where people are simply talking about their personal preferences.

Discussions of personal preferences rarely descend into frustration territory. You like what you like. I’ve been playing a lot of Ironsworn lately. I think it’s a great game and tons of fun. I’m not trying to claim that it’s superior to anything. If anyone wants to know what I found enjoyable about it, I can wax poetic and point to some good resources. I’m not sure how I would frustrate people with that conversation.

OTOH I contend that one of the biggest issues with 4e was presentation. Much more than actual mechanics. I can point to several things as evidence. Apparently that’s really frustrating to people so I generally don’t do it anymore because it never seems to go anywhere.

But at least I can point to evidence for my opinion. Most of the frustration points that are perennially kicked about often result from a complete denial by one side or the other to entertain demonstrable facts. And I know that o do not see those two sides as equal.

 

[payn]

Faolyn posted a great response to this already. For my own opinion -- I'd question their taste and say I don't understand it. I think it's reasonable for a company like WotC to move away from those depictions. But I don't think their preferences make them a bad person or are necessarily morally flawed.

Another example is the use of "species". Personally I don't use the old term, because I think its important for inclusivity. I think it's great that the industry has largely moved on. But I know many people who prefer it, and I don't hold it against them.

Right, there is nothing wrong with liking cheesecake. Demanding cheesecake and only cheesecake is an issue. There is room for beefcake and no cake and any cake In between.

 

[Xenolith234]

That’s not true at all. Opinions absolutely should be based in facts. Opinion is not the same as preference.

I think x is true because of a, b and c, is an opinion based in facts. I think x is true because I like it is also an opinion. But the first has some value. The second doesn’t.

And the idea that the two should be held equal is one of the bigger problems in society today.

That’s not according to the Oxford dictionary definition.

“a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.”

 

[Faolyn]

Yeah, it's not like TSR had some kid-friendly mascot in order to entice younger players...
View attachment 402312
Oh, hey there, Morley!

And a cartoon.

And a line of kids' toys.

(I used to have that dragonne. I'm pretty sure I also had the Fortress of Fangs.)