Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8612557" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Well...again, that's presuming that less either accomplishes the same amount of goals, or (as &quot;less is more&quot; usually implies), actually accomplishes more goals than the current set of things.Like, you can say &quot;less may well be the desired result,&quot; but I don't think even a single person who favors cutting down on classes is straight-up saying, &quot;You should not be allowed to play a divine warrior anymore, that archetype has been deleted from the game. If you want that archetype, look elsewhere.&quot; That's what &quot;less is less&quot; would mean in this context, and very few people--I'm pretty sure not even you!--actually want that.Instead, what most advocates of &quot;less is more&quot; are saying is that you can accomplish either more things, the same number of things, or (if they're pushed) possibly a very very slightly reduced number of things, while using substantially fewer &quot;moving parts&quot; as it were. It's not that eliminating Paladin is good because not having &quot;holy knight&quot; as an archetype would be good; it's that eliminating &quot;Paladin&quot; because it is unnecessary (or so they claim) is good, but eliminating it would not eliminate the &quot;holy knight&quot; archetype. Instead, that archetype can either be represented extremely simply (e.g. Fighter with the Acolyte or Knight of the Order background) or less-simply (e.g. writing a new Divine equivalent of Eldritch Knight to take the Paladin's place).Unless, that is, you truly are saying that you wish to outright eliminate archetypes from the D&amp;D playspace? As always, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I think you'll find that particular opinion will not get much traction in the vast majority of discussions.Also, &quot;cutting down bloat&quot; is inherently a loaded phrase. That is like saying, &quot;It is always desirable to fight evil.&quot; Well, sure it is. But we aren't talking about whether it is desirable to fight evil. We're talking about whether it's desirable to fight werewolves. It is a (formal, for once) fallacy--specifically, I believe it is the fallacy of four terms--to invoke &quot;cutting down bloat is always a worthy goal&quot; unless one establishes the link between &quot;game X supports Y/Z/W archetypes&quot; and &quot;game X is bloated.&quot; We have something of the form, &quot;It is always desirable to fight bloat. Game X supports Y, Z, and W as archetypes. Therefore, it is always desirable to remove Y, Z, and W as archetypes.&quot; The two premises have no terms in common, so the conclusion does not follow. One can only make it follow by adding a middle premise, &quot;It is bloat to support archetypes Y, Z, and W,&quot; but that is the very thing the critic of these archetypes is trying to assert in the first place, making their argument circular: it is good to remove them because they are bloat, and they are bloat because it is good to remove them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8612557, member: 6790260"] Well...again, that's presuming that less either accomplishes the same amount of goals, or (as "less is more" usually implies), actually accomplishes [I]more[/I] goals than the current set of things. Like, you can say "less may well be the desired result," but I don't think even a single person who favors cutting down on classes is straight-up saying, "You should not be [I]allowed[/I] to play a divine warrior anymore, that archetype has been deleted from the game. If you want that archetype, [I]look elsewhere[/I]." That's what "less is less" would mean in this context, and very few people--I'm pretty sure not even you!--actually want that. Instead, what most advocates of "less is more" are saying is that you can accomplish either more things, the same number of things, or (if they're pushed) possibly a [I]very very slightly[/I] reduced number of things, while using substantially fewer "moving parts" as it were. It's not that eliminating Paladin is good because not having "holy knight" as an archetype would be good; it's that eliminating "Paladin" [I]because it is unnecessary[/I] (or so they claim) is good, but eliminating it [I]would not[/I] eliminate the "holy knight" archetype. Instead, that archetype can either be represented extremely simply (e.g. Fighter with the Acolyte or Knight of the Order background) or less-simply (e.g. writing a new Divine equivalent of Eldritch Knight to take the Paladin's place). Unless, that is, you truly are saying that you wish to outright [I]eliminate[/I] archetypes from the D&D playspace? As always, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I think you'll find that particular opinion will not get much traction in the vast majority of discussions. Also, "cutting down bloat" is inherently a loaded phrase. That is like saying, "It is always desirable to fight evil." Well, sure it is. But we aren't talking about whether it is desirable to fight evil. We're talking about whether it's desirable to fight [I]werewolves[/I]. It is a (formal, for once) fallacy--specifically, I believe it is the fallacy of four terms--to invoke "cutting down bloat is always a worthy goal" unless one establishes the link between "game X supports Y/Z/W archetypes" and "game X is bloated." We have something of the form, "It is always desirable to fight bloat. Game X supports Y, Z, and W as archetypes. Therefore, it is always desirable to remove Y, Z, and W as archetypes." The two premises have no terms in common, so the conclusion does not follow. One can only make it follow by adding a middle premise, "It is bloat to support archetypes Y, Z, and W," but that is the very thing the critic of these archetypes is trying to assert in the first place, making their argument circular: it is good to remove them because they are bloat, and they are bloat because it is good to remove them. [/QUOTE]

Verification