D&D General 5.5E--new edition or not?

[bsss]

[...] how could any gm ever actually engage in that communication as long as the player is willing to simply react with anger and claim the gm is out to get them knowing that sticking to that is an unquestionable defense the gm will always wind up assumed to be off base over as long as the player doesn't budge.

I trust in the connections people make and believe the vast majority of players are not as you describe them here, definitely not to the degree that it would dissuade me from my advice to explain that a mistake, somewhere, was made, and discuss how to move on.

 

[tetrasodium]

I trust in the connections people make and believe the vast majority of players are not as you describe them here, definitely not to the degree that it would dissuade me from my advice to explain that a mistake, somewhere, was made, and discuss how to move on.

But the player is not in the discussion & nobody is talking to them, you said it yourself in 289... I'm certainly not talking to the player either unless you are claiming to secretly be one of the three players.

If its not the mere accusation by anyone deserving of sanctified status, what part of 283 set off your BadGM'ing radar that led you to quote 283 with the start of this learn2gm "advice"scolding in 284? Was it the mere accusation from ClintL? Was it the 283 efforts by retreater to point out how he had been misrepresented in 273 in those accusation? Was it the mere mention of 3 different player preferences that conflict with each other back in 265?

 

[bsss]

But the player is not in the discussion & nobody is talking to them, you said it yourself in 289... I'm certainly not talking to the player either unless you are claiming to secretly be one of the three players.

If its not the mere accusation by anyone deserving of sanctified status, what part of 283 set off your BadGM'ing radar that led you to quote 283 with the start of this learn2gm "advice"scolding in 284? Was it the mere accusation from ClintL? Was it the 283 efforts by retreater to point out how he had been misrepresented in 273 in those accusation? Was it the mere mention of 3 different player preferences that conflict with each other back in 265?

I don't know what triggers you about my posts or why you insist on exaggerating them, but I'm sorry for whatever trauma you appear to have suffered in the past that makes you feel this way about the simple notion of: talk to your players and try to agree on something to continue enjoying the game.

That aside, as I said, inconsistent rulings are problems for players, so I agree with Clint_L in that the player has a fairly good reason to feel upset. Retreater has a fairly good reason for feeling like his one-time ruling was overpowered or not to be repeated, but in the end it is perceived as an inconsistent standard. The healthy way to resolve that is for Repeater to talk to the player rather than accusing the player of "powergaming" "B.S.".

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't know what triggers you about my posts or why you insist on exaggerating them, but I'm sorry for whatever trauma you appear to have suffered in the past that makes you feel this way about the simple notion of: talk to your players and try to agree on something to continue enjoying the game.

You greatly misunderstood misread and/or misrepresented my questioning of the logic involved in your own post to make that attack. Perhaps that's the same misunderstanding that led to your initial post in 384.

That aside, as I said, inconsistent rulings are problems for players, so I agree with Clint_L in that the player has a fairly good reason to feel upset. Retreater has a fairly good reason for feeling like his one-time ruling was overpowered or not to be repeated, but in the end it is perceived as an inconsistent standard. The healthy way to resolve that is for Repeater to talk to the player rather than accusing the player of "powergaming" "B.S.".

What the heck are you talking about? I didn't ask if you agree with Clint... I asked what was said that led you to agree with Clint so much that it triggered your post. Clearly the mere accusation is enough for you to assume bad unskilled gming even when an involved third party is making the accusation.

 

[bsss]

What the heck are you talking about? I didn't ask if you agree with Clint... I asked what was said that led you to agree with Clint so much that it triggered your post. Clearly the mere accusation is enough for you to assume bad unskilled gming even when an involved third party is making the accusation.

It's probably that I posted what I intended to say, not what you are attempting to read into it. I don't think I have anything else to say to you on this matter.

 

[bsss]

I just realized how silly these threads look when someone has you on their two-way block, lol. My apologies to that segment of the audience.

In an attempt to get back on topic, I think a core tension in the OP is still under-discussed: should Morrus have just said "yes, this pre-2024 product is for D&D 5.5e"? I still think there are avenues to "yes", at least some of the time.

 

[Seramus]

Do you consider 3.5 and 3e to be different editions? It’s basically the same case here.

Yes, but primarily because when 3.5 came out people started dropping 3.0 content like hot potatoes. Many groups saw "only" 3.5 material allowed at their table. Some groups allowed both without issue, but allowing both was not the default assumption - you had to ask your DM, because it might not be, and thus it was just easier to focus on 3.5.

 

[mamba]

I think a core tension in the OP is still under-discussed: should Morrus have just said "yes, this pre-2024 product is for D&D 5.5e"? I still think there are avenues to "yes", at least some of the time.

no, if it was designed for 5e then say so, do not pretend it is for 5.5. You can point out that the two are largely compatible so it also works with 5.5, but saying it is for 5.5 is a lie.

 

[bsss]

no, if it was designed for 5e then say so, do not pretend it is for 5.5. You can point out that the two are largely compatible so it also works with 5.5, but saying it is for 5.5 is a lie.

Maybe "for", specifically, is too strong of a word and makes it a lie, fair enough. But, if it's content unaffected by 5.5 rules changes, is there any difference between "largely compatible with" and "for", other than publishing history? If Morrus were to reprint the products "for" 5.5, and they were not any different, is there any meaningful lie in saying the original is a 5.5 product too? I don't think Morrus should lie either, but I think the answer to this suggests something about if 5.0 and 5.5 are different editions (relative to what that means to Morrus's products, anyway).

 

[mamba]

if it's content unaffected by 5.5 rules changes, is there any difference between "largely compatible with" and "for", other than publishing history? If Morrus were to reprint the products "for" 5.5, and they were not any different, is there any meaningful lie in saying the original is a 5.5 product too?

I don’t know the products, in that case I would say that there is no difference.

As soon as there are subclasses or monsters included (rather than just referenced) it is either a 5e or a 5.5 product however and no longer ‘system neutral’.

Arguably it still uses the wrong encounter building rules but that is probably not much of an issue, esp. for tier 1 and 2