D&D 5E (2014) Analyzing 5E: Overpowered by design

[evilbob]

Ok, had to make a separate post for this: I replied to a post on page 12 (using the default forum paging) without reading ahead and when I see the current responses on page 17, it makes me laugh pretty hard. Somehow we got from defining what is D&D is or should be to defining whether fungi are plants.

 

[jeffh]

Just responding to the general tenor of the first page or so (and maybe this point's been made but if so I didn't see it and anyway this is probably more succinct):

If you're concluding that EVERYTHING is overpowered, what's going wrong is that your expectations about the game's power level are calibrated all wrong. Everything can't be overpowered, because for something to be overpowered there must be something else in the game that it's overpowered relative to. It might be calibrated to a power level that isn't to your tastes, but that's not the same thing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just responding to the general tenor of the first page or so (and maybe this point's been made but if so I didn't see it and anyway this is probably more succinct):

If you're concluding that EVERYTHING is overpowered, what's going wrong is that your expectations about the game's power level are calibrated all wrong. Everything can't be overpowered, because for something to be overpowered there must be something else in the game that it's overpowered relative to. It might be calibrated to a power level that isn't to your tastes, but that's not the same thing.

Be prepared to be told how you've completely missed the point, and thus the author will ignore you. Also, be prepared to be told that you were wrong to think that it's not to his taste, that "overpowered" has a negative connotation, and a few other sundry things. The fault, of course, lies with you and me and the others who thought he was complaining, and who totally missed the obvious signs that he was pleased.

 

[CapnZapp]

Having just reread the first post, I'd say both sides have a case.

On one hand, the title alone suggests complaints since "overpowered" is generally a negative word. Also, the wording in the actual post is rather neutral, so there are few spots where you can easily tell what he actually feels. This means that if you're already tinted by the topic title, it's easy to read in negative feelings into the text.

On the other hand, there simply isn't any complaining at all in the entire post. Again, much of it is because the language is so neutral and factual, but still - if you actually read the post there's no reason to treat it as a complaint.

I'd call it a failure of communication. Nothing more nothing less. You can't win'em all the time. Move on, nothing to see.

 

[Celtavian]

Having just reread the first post, I'd say both sides have a case.

On one hand, the title alone suggests complaints since "overpowered" is generally a negative word. Also, the wording in the actual post is rather neutral, so there are few spots where you can easily tell what he actually feels. This means that if you're already tinted by the topic title, it's easy to read in negative feelings into the text.

On the other hand, there simply isn't any complaining at all in the entire post. Again, much of it is because the language is so neutral and factual, but still - if you actually read the post there's no reason to treat it as a complaint.

I'd call it a failure of communication. Nothing more nothing less. You can't win'em all the time. Move on, nothing to see.

It accomplished what I wished. You accurately described both the intention and tone of the post. The title as you noted was controversial and intended to invite discussion due to the negative connotation of the word "overpowered" in RPGs. The post was observational and neutral indicating I was neither pleased nor displeased with the edition being overpowered. That is why I stated it was incorrect to assume I was complaining. It would also be incorrect to assume I was complimenting. I was noting observations and conclusions I had noticed during play and analysis.

Thank you for accurately describing both the intent and tone of the post. As we all well know, when you post on a forum the personal bias of the reader always impresses itself on the discussion. Rare are the folk that can engage in an analytical discussion without letting their personal feelings invade taking it in unintended directions.

I will give you some xp for reading comprehension, sir. You understood what I wrote without adding your own bias or assumptions.

 

[Eejit]

But I won't labour the point, fair enough if the consensus view is that the writers probably intended fungi to be lumped in with plants. In which case I take back my comment that you wouldn't be able to 'travel via plants' to a big mushroom in the underdark, if thats what the writers may have intended. Unfortunately for me, if I tried this at our table I imagine I'd get laughed out of the room xD

Point them to Myconoids in the MM

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It accomplished what I wished. You accurately described both the intention and tone of the post. The title as you noted was controversial and intended to invite discussion due to the negative connotation of the word "overpowered" in RPGs. The post was observational and neutral indicating I was neither pleased nor displeased with the edition being overpowered. That is why I stated it was incorrect to assume I was complaining. It would also be incorrect to assume I was complimenting. I was noting observations and conclusions I had noticed during play and analysis.

FWIW, I thought your point was clear all along even before you clarified it on the first page. Where I come from, "by design" is a pretty explicit statement about intent. It was clear you meant "'Overpowered' By Design" and not genuinely overpowered in a bad way, since you spent all your time pointing out ways for everybody to be awesome and fun.

So you got your point across, IMO.