Search results

Logic requires self-consistency. Without self-consistency, it becomes pure GIGO. Logic cannot preserve truth values if you feed it inconsistent premises. That's literally why Gödel's work in mathematics was so important. He proved that any system which had sufficient rules to do really basic...

Alone? Obviously not. They did make several mistakes. But it is just as obviously wrong to say that they totally ignored customer feedback, built a game nobody wanted, and then were shocked by the results. 4e also didn't fail. Per reports from actual former employees. Great myth though. The...

Logic suggests that if I think something is right for the wrong reasons, I should call it out because that's going to cause more problems than it solves. Because it is straight up hypocrisy to accept a thing I like even though I dislike why it exists, only to reject something I dislike because I...

I mean, of course people enjoyed 3rd edition. It managed to be even more broken than 1st. People love being able to break reality over their knees. It's power fantasy you can apply to other people. What's not to love?

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I think they knew a lot better than you give credit for. Because they literally did ask for feedback, and they objectively did respond to it. We have proof. Unless you've forgotten the Golden Wyvern Adept fiasco, and how it proved that WotC literally...

... So what you're saying is, no one ever can discuss anything. Because, since the only thing we know is always our own experiences, we cannot ever talk about anything other than that experience, and that experience is so utterly unique to each individual person it means absolutely nothing...

"Eventually"? What was 2024?

Okay. My problem is that I dispute that reasoning. It can still mean that people end up dropping it for having missed the mark. Because the problem is that popular positive response isn't a conserved quantity. I have, personally, witnessed more than enough times now: a string of decisions...

A playtest document is designed to be distributed for easy, rapid testing. It is barebones, focused on efficiently communicating the mechanics in question, in a way that helps the user quickly apply said rules, and actually test them. Meaning, it explains to some extent the purpose/intent of the...

As said to Micah: The problem is that the standard being levied is one of being irritated with design-by-popular-vote, but that is literally what 5e was! It literally did that! So if design-by-popularity is a bad idea now, I have to ask: Why wasn't it a bad idea then? Either it wasn't a bad idea...

But "plenty of people [opposed it]" is precisely the standard you're complaining about if you dislike the hyperbland sorcerer and not-meaningfully-differentiated warlock. "Plenty of people" is LITERALLY why those things ended up the way they did. They failed to hit a certain minimum approval...

Actually...the vast majority of play, once you have completed the "main story" of an MMO, is almost entirely group-focused. That's...why I brought up the "duty roulette" thing. You are getting assigned a random dungeon or raid with other players. It's actually a pretty recent development to...

Bearing in mind that I am inventing numbers as I write this post, and thus any numerical balance is extremely unlikely to bear out beyond superficial examination: Imagine that in this hypothetical 6e, we can define the absolute bare minimum one requires in order to have...a character, as...

So what does that make of a huge, huge swathe of both complaints levied at, I dunno, some particular version of some popular game out there, AND at the explicit design policy that went into the sequel? Because if that's true, then the entire foundation upon which 5e was built is inherently suspect.

Irrelevant. Player psychology is doing so. Are we now saying that the players should adjust to the game's design, regardless of their personal feelings? Is that actually an argument you want to make? I suspect it isn't, that's why I'm asking.

Perhaps not; but it is a general truism in game design that, unless you specifically go out of your way to make support very enjoyable or very powerful (the two are not the same), people will prefer to play direct-action roles, even if they would otherwise like playing supportive roles. This...

It is? When was that established? I never got that understanding from it, and it was never communicated in any of the level-based games I've played. A level-based game is there to have understandable steps of progression. That has nothing to do with where one starts that progression. The...

That....was literally my point. What GM hears "Hey, I have this third-party product which makes better monsters" and thinks "Golly, that sounds swell! We'll start using that right away." The last time I saw a GM accept player-provided 3PP, 4th edition hadn't been released yet. And believe me...

How does that help? That just means the PHB, DMG, and MM need to be even better, because now those are functionally the only books that exist at all!

Who cares there's a fix somewhere when 3/4 of GMs don't know it's there, 3/4 of those who do will refuse to ever even consider using it, and 3/4 of those who might consider using it have other things they want to focus on instead? The vast majority of third party products functionally don't...