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

[mamba]

Nice take on my explanation.

To boil it down, using facts to bully someone's opinion just isn't cool. Not everyone that voices an opinion is looking for a debate. Opinions are not right or wrong, they just exist.

Sorry, I completely disagree, if your opinion runs counter to the facts, then it is an idiotic opinion to have and you should change it. Opinions can very much be wrong, saying the Earth is flat is not equally valid as saying it is a sphere

 

[Hussar]

Huh? When? Where?? What???

Quote me. Because I don't see it.

Ah, it's a long thread and I got you mixed up with @Kromanjon. Totally sorry about that. My bad.

But, look at how it's being presented. People tried to "shout him down" for presenting an opinion. That somehow actually having facts is now shouting someone down? @Kromanjon has repeatedly stated that ascending or decending AC is neither better or worse. Yet, this is countered by actual science - addition is easier for people and countered by history - every single RPG has rejected descending AC.

But, because it's an "opinion" we're not allowed to question it? That by challenging the assertion we're now "shouting down"?

Since when are facts a bad thing?

 

[Hussar]

Heh. Totally apropos, I had a class this evening and this was one of the slides:

Heh. I did not create this lesson. Heck, I hadn't actually seen the slide until I taught it. Just thought it was hilarious that when teaching an ESL class on how to persuade someone, they straight up said exactly what I've been saying all along.

 

[mamba]

Since when are facts a bad thing?

early 2010s I think

 

[Kromanjon]

Ah, it's a long thread and I got you mixed up with @Kromanjon. Totally sorry about that. My bad.

But, look at how it's being presented. People tried to "shout him down" for presenting an opinion. That somehow actually having facts is now shouting someone down? @Kromanjon has repeatedly stated that ascending or decending AC is neither better or worse. Yet, this is countered by actual science - addition is easier for people and countered by history - every single RPG has rejected descending AC.

But, because it's an "opinion" we're not allowed to question it? That by challenging the assertion we're now "shouting down"?

Since when are facts a bad thing?

You can question it all you want but since taste in games differ easier is not always better. Therefore the facts have no bearing on the arguments made.

Addition is easier than subtraction. Scientifically proven (as per your statement and I've learned not to question you authority).

However, easier game equals better game is not scientifically proven since "better game" is a matter of opinion.

Also every single rpg rejecting descending AC is factually wrong since D&D did it for several editions.

And yes, in my opinion you, and som others, are actively "shouting down" anyone whose opinions differ from yours. Claiming facts does not help this in the slightest. I find it funny that for every time someone is called a grognard who wants the "kids of his lawn" it's usually in an attempt to get said person to not contribute to an ongoing discussion in a public forum. Sort of like asking someone to get of a public lawn.

 

[ezo]

Ah, it's a long thread and I got you mixed up with @Kromanjon. Totally sorry about that. My bad.

No worries! I had some things leaning in that direction, so I thought perhaps you took my responses a bit further than intended and ran with it. Either way, we're good.

But, look at how it's being presented. People tried to "shout him down" for presenting an opinion. That somehow actually having facts is now shouting someone down? @Kromanjon has repeatedly stated that ascending or decending AC is neither better or worse. Yet, this is countered by actual science - addition is easier for people and countered by history - every single RPG has rejected descending AC.

Well, I agree with @Kromanjon that neither is fundamentally better or worse, simple preference.

"Every single RPG"??? Well, I don't know because I am not familiar with every single RPG ever made or in existance (are you??).

I've seen d100 roll under systems, for example, where lower defenses were better because it was harder to roll under. Given the roll under ability for proficiency checks in AD&D, a roll under AC would make sense as well.

Don't get me wrong, there were some confluted stuff in AD&D so I can understand why some people might have had a problem, but (speaking for myself and those I knew) few people really seemed to struggle with it IME.

But, because it's an "opinion" we're not allowed to question it? That by challenging the assertion we're now "shouting down"?

Since when are facts a bad thing?

If the person has an opinion and doesn't care to have it refuted or discuss it, then yes, sort of you are.

My opinion is 5E 2024 sucks. Not a single thing about it I like that wasn't already a commonly used house-rule in many groups. Take paladin's smite. We house-ruled it to once per turn a long time ago to prevent novas. 2024 made it a spell or something which sort of limited it the same way. Do I like the way they did it? Nope. I think simply limiting it is easier, doesn't make it a spell, etc. However, the over all outcome is the same---(sort of)---once on your turn (we allow it on other turns via OA, for example, so less of a nerf).

No one will ever convince me 2024 5E is good. Nothing but pointless rules, power creep, or horrible art (yeah, I hate the art!).

Does it matter to me that it is selling pretty well or others are embracing it? Nope. Not one iota. That "fact" doesn't change my opinion at all. Frankly, it isn't something I care to discuss and if someone tells me "5E 2024 is great; it is selling well and such, blah blah blah" trying to use "facts" to support that their opinion is better than mine, that is shouting down my opinion.

Opinions are just that... opinions. They are NEVER (IMO ) right or wrong... they just are. You can question someone's justifcation if they give you one, but that doesn't make their opinion "less valid" because it is based on their experiences, feelings, or preferences over "facts".

Of course, this is different from misinformation. If I said 2024 5E sucks because it isn't selling well, I would be wrong. "Well" is subjective, certainly, but I think you get my point.

As far as THAC0 is concerned, I am an educator and mathematician. I know for most people adding is easier than subtracting, especially when you get into negative numbers like descending AC could. But does that make Ascending AC "better" just because it is easier? Not IMO. It is just a different system to accomplish the same goal. I mean, one of the reasons I am so good with maths is because I played D&D from a young age on. I know kids who learned to understand negative numbers back in the 80's because of D&D and descending AC.

There are many times in life when easier is not better. Look at the cartoon you just posted. Is it easier to buy vegetables instead of growing your own? Certainly. "Better" is in ethe eye of the beholder. More convenient? Sure. I would agree with that. And Ascending AC is more convenient for many people, but "better".... that is a matter of opinion.

 

[Staffan]

You can question it all you want but since taste in games differ easier is not always better. Therefore the facts have no bearing on the arguments made.

Easier is, in and of itself, almost always better. The two counterexamples I can think of are when the difficulty itself is the point, e.g. when you're training and want harder challenges to sharpen your skill, or when the thing is designed to prevent people from using it (you don't want to hide things behind an easy cypher). You generally don't want either when playing games.

However, complexity and difficulty can be a currency with which you buy depth. Look at Pathfinder 2, for example. There you have hundreds if not thousands of feats (though any given character at any given point has a reasonably manageable number of options). These let you differentiate between e.g. an athlete who is good at tossing around unreasonably large creatures (Titan Wrestler), one who is good at jumping (Quick Jump), and one who can carry a lot (Hefty Hauler). That's an increase in complexity (skill feats) which buys a certain amount of depth (character differentiation). Whether it's worth it is a matter of taste.

THAC0/descending AC is a piece of complexity that gets a really bad exchange rate when converted to depth. There is nothing to be gained by sticking to it, other than some weird appeal to tradition (which is just peer pressure from dead people).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am just curious what are the opinions and facts in this case?

Sorry, I completely disagree, if your opinion runs counter to the facts, then it is an idiotic opinion to have and you should change it. Opinions can very much be wrong, saying the Earth is flat is not equally valid as saying it is a sphere

The earth is flat isn't an opinion though. That is a claim about the truth of the world (and it can be tested). The earth is flat, and that makes me so angry, I think a flat earth would be a better design, is an opinion.

 

[Kromanjon]

Easier is, in and of itself, almost always better. The two counterexamples I can think of are when the difficulty itself is the point, e.g. when you're training and want harder challenges to sharpen your skill, or when the thing is designed to prevent people from using it (you don't want to hide things behind an easy cypher). You generally don't want either when playing games.

It all depends on what you want from your game. For instance…

However, complexity and difficulty can be a currency with which you buy depth. Look at Pathfinder 2, for example. There you have hundreds if not thousands of feats (though any given character at any given point has a reasonably manageable number of options). These let you differentiate between e.g. an athlete who is good at tossing around unreasonably large creatures (Titan Wrestler), one who is good at jumping (Quick Jump), and one who can carry a lot (Hefty Hauler). That's an increase in complexity (skill feats) which buys a certain amount of depth (character differentiation). Whether it's worth it is a matter of taste.

As you yourself say, perhaps you want depth or granularity. I have friend who want rules for combat to have different damage types for bludgeoning, slashing, stabbing and then have armors who act differently against these damages just as in real life. He wants this complexity because he feels it enhances his game. It’s his opinion.

THAC0/descending AC is a piece of complexity that gets a really bad exchange rate when converted to depth. There is nothing to be gained by sticking to it, other than some weird appeal to tradition (which is just peer pressure from dead people).

I just don’t agree. I have already stated that back in the days THAC0 confused me. Today I find it easy an actually quite enjoyable. I would probably have dropped this thread a long time ago though if I didn’t feel like some people were so set on questioning my enjoyment.

Maybe my opinion is weird and unusual, but nobody has the right to say it’s wrong.

 

[mamba]

Does it matter to me that it is selling pretty well or others are embracing it? Nope. Not one iota. That "fact" doesn't change my opinion at all. Frankly, it isn't something I care to discuss and if someone tells me "5E 2024 is great; it is selling well and such, blah blah blah" trying to use "facts" to support that their opinion is better than mine, that is shouting down my opinion.

you can like it or not, sales have nothing to do with that so as an argument it is a non sequitur. What you cannot do is say that no one buys it, because the sales do contradict that

As far as THAC0 is concerned, I am an educator and mathematician. I know for most people adding is easier than subtracting, especially when you get into negative numbers like descending AC could. But does that make Ascending AC "better" just because it is easier? Not IMO. It is just a different system to accomplish the same goal.

if there is an easier / simpler way to accomplish the same thing and all things being equal, I would consider it to be the better way to do so.

The cartoon does not choose the harder way because the result is the same but because it costs them less money, they substitute their work for their money. If you want THAC0 because it teaches math, you also changed the goal(s)