D&D 5E Companion thread to 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part XV: The FINAL ROUND)

[Mind of tempest]

So, Hanlon's Razor suggests "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity", but I would personally add, "never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by a difference in preference." Crawford may or may not be the ultimate authority on the game he helped write (that seems an open-shut case to me but I also subscribe to the idea that D&D, like all TTRPGs, belong to us) but ascribing malice to such examples seems like more than a little bit too much of a stretch.

Also, not to be that gal that leans on appeal to popularity, but considering the vast increase in new players (and indeed, new DMs) and that these numbers have only risen throughout the years, I just don't see there being much evidence to support that position and a boatload that refutes it. I mean, they gotta be doing something right, no?

you assume they were inspired by the ruling, not rules instead of any other possible reason to enjoy dnd, things can succeed in spite of parts of them.

 

[CleverNickName]

it is a problem for me but not you, the real question is are we in conflict or is this a false argument?

Well if it helps: if we are talking about conflicting opinions, then neither side can be false. They're opinions, not facts. If you say it's a problem for you, and I say it isn't a problem for me, we are both equally correct. The point of a casual conversation is to share information and experiences, not to decide who "wins."

 

[Gradine]

you assume they were inspired by the ruling, not rules instead of any other possible reason to enjoy dnd, things can succeed in spite of parts of them.

Fair, but then, I am not the one arguing to "ruling not rules" as the key reason why 5e is bad and its creators conniving and/or lazy. It can be an annoyance that new DMs have to learn how to work around but, but the argument that it abjectly ruins the game is demonstrably false.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Wrong, and on just about every account. Also, negative points for casting negative aspersions on real human designers in response to a post about how we shouldn't be doing exactly that. I'd have Johnny tell you what you won, but I think you already know the answer to that one.

"I don't prefer this style of game design" is not "these soulless lazy hucksters have worked hard to capture nostalgia while also being too lazy to design a game".

That's what they did. That's what they explained they were doing; moving 'back' to the old days. That is literally the reason they lauded the 'natural language' in the books. It's not a negative aspersion when it's the thing they said they were doing.

 

[Gradine]

That's what they did. That's what they explained they were doing; moving 'back' to the old days. That is literally the reason they lauded the 'natural language' in the books. It's not a negative aspersion when it's the thing they said they were doing.

"Moving 'back' the the old days" is the explanation they used. "Manipulative nostalgia bait" is a negative aspersion.

 

[Vaalingrade]

"Moving 'back' the the old days" is the explanation they used. "Manipulative nostalgia bait" is a negative aspersion.

They are the same picture.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
I see posts here that are making the conversation... less pleasant, and more contentious.

It is time for that to stop. This should be a pleasant conversation, and if you are making it less pleasant, that's going to be a problem. If you cannot be kind to others, try not responding to them at all.

 

[Undrave]

Fair, but then, I am not the one arguing to "ruling not rules" as the key reason why 5e is bad and its creators conniving and/or lazy. It can be an annoyance that new DMs have to learn how to work around but, but the argument that it abjectly ruins the game is demonstrably false.

I wouldn't say the game is BAD, just that the philosophy left weaknesses in the ruleset that they could probably have fixed, but they chose not to because of said philosophy. There are aspects where 'Rulings not Rules' work and other where I feel like a bit more rules would have been useful. Just a line in the hiding box about how you need some kind of cover from the creature you want to hide from?

There's a few spots where they basically go "your DM decides if X applies/is useable/happens" instead of saying "X applies/is usable/happens when Y, but your DM can also decide on other circumstances.". For exemple, the Wild Magic Sorcerer's Wild Surge is one of the DUMBEST class design in the game. It only ever activates if your DM thinks about it. The main feature of your subclass is completly depending on that? It already has a really low chance of doing anything!

 

[Aldarc]

I wouldn't say the game is BAD, just that the philosophy left weaknesses in the ruleset that they could probably have fixed, but they chose not to because of said philosophy. There are aspects where 'Rulings not Rules' work and other where I feel like a bit more rules would have been useful. Just a line in the hiding box about how you need some kind of cover from the creature you want to hide from?

There's a few spots where they basically go "your DM decides if X applies/is useable/happens" instead of saying "X applies/is usable/happens when Y, but your DM can also decide on other circumstances.". For exemple, the Wild Magic Sorcerer's Wild Surge is one of the DUMBEST class design in the game. It only ever activates if your DM thinks about it. The main feature of your subclass is completly depending on that? It already has a really low chance of doing anything!

I believe that it's telling that even in one of the 1D&D playtest videos, Jerermy Crawford himself said that they don't want players to have Mother-May-I abilities - even going out of his way to talk explicitly about MMI - and are looking to get rid of them for players. Rulings Not Rules can have a reverse effect on the desired play style that 5e D&D is trying to cultivate. This is to say that there are times when Rulings Not Rules can (a) slow down the game's intended pace and (b) leave players feeling unsatisfied with unreliable abilities as a result of inconsistent application of GM fiat.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Also, not to be that gal that leans on appeal to popularity, but considering the vast increase in new players (and indeed, new DMs) and that these numbers have only risen throughout the years, I just don't see there being much evidence to support that position and a boatload that refutes it. I mean, they gotta be doing something right, no?

just because there has been a large increase in new players and GMs that doesn't mean the DMG and other books do a good job of actually teaching and supporting new GMs on how to run a game, saying 'if there's an issue the GM can decide' doesn't actually help the GM make that decision.