Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convince me to Spend the Money
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 6572648" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>I recognise that you prefer a pears-versus-apples approach to argumentation. Anything is possible. Sometimes I like pears, other times apples. But here we are speaking about the typical findings of the craft of game development. A field I've worked in professionally for decades. The question is not 'is X absolutely correlated with Y' but rather, 'is X significantly correlated with Y' so that observing X one is more likely to observe Y. You ask in your title to be convinced. Conviction in the case of something you have not experienced for yourself will typically require induction. Good induction means observing significant correlations. I would certainly concur with your sense that we cannot be certain based on design team's skill and effort that you will like 5th edition. But we don't need to be certain. All we need is a reasonable expectation. It is reasonably likely that more effort will result in a better, not worse, set of rules. Better laid out. Fewer errors. More checking of edge cases. Etc. We can acknowledge an absence of absolute correlation (X does not always produce Y) while still being capable of supporting the essential tools of conviction. Convince me to obtain X that I do not have? Induction is useful and relevant to that end.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think I would agree with your sense that 'forcing an idea to work' may not be the most fruitful use of time. But good design is a process that explores the design space (taking time and effort) and finds the fruitful paths. WotC have proved themselves good at doing this. I was very impressed with the background work they performed in preparation for 4th edition. I admired their courageous choice to venture into the unknown. It opened up design space. It turned out for me that 4th edition wasn't what I wanted. It is not a guarantee of enjoyment that someone worked hard on something.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I feel it is helpful to having a good discussion to point out the straw man. I did not say that you would or should read rules wondering how long they took to come up. The rules that are hardest and most effortful to come up with are paradoxically likely to be the ones that feel most natural and least effortful when you read them. But I didn't say that it was a factor in your personal game buying. For all I know, what you need to hear is that they used a particular shade of puce on page 13.</p><p></p><p>What I did say is that a rule set is more probably enjoyable if that set has been laboured on with time, skill and care. That is in the nature of an argument for convincing. Given a random player, more probably they will enjoy a rule set that was crafted with care, time and skill. If you are a gamer then it increases the <em>probability</em> that you will enjoy the rules to know about those things. It may not be a conscious factor in your game buying, but that is irrelevant. I didn't say it would be, or that that mattered. If 5th was shoddily put together then I would have pointed that out to you instead. I think you will come back to me on this - if at all - with evasion (ah, but my special tastes and situation require etc). Much as you have every other post in this thread. Basically trolling, but in a way that provokes some nice discussion so can be tolerated <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 6572648, member: 71699"] I recognise that you prefer a pears-versus-apples approach to argumentation. Anything is possible. Sometimes I like pears, other times apples. But here we are speaking about the typical findings of the craft of game development. A field I've worked in professionally for decades. The question is not 'is X absolutely correlated with Y' but rather, 'is X significantly correlated with Y' so that observing X one is more likely to observe Y. You ask in your title to be convinced. Conviction in the case of something you have not experienced for yourself will typically require induction. Good induction means observing significant correlations. I would certainly concur with your sense that we cannot be certain based on design team's skill and effort that you will like 5th edition. But we don't need to be certain. All we need is a reasonable expectation. It is reasonably likely that more effort will result in a better, not worse, set of rules. Better laid out. Fewer errors. More checking of edge cases. Etc. We can acknowledge an absence of absolute correlation (X does not always produce Y) while still being capable of supporting the essential tools of conviction. Convince me to obtain X that I do not have? Induction is useful and relevant to that end. I think I would agree with your sense that 'forcing an idea to work' may not be the most fruitful use of time. But good design is a process that explores the design space (taking time and effort) and finds the fruitful paths. WotC have proved themselves good at doing this. I was very impressed with the background work they performed in preparation for 4th edition. I admired their courageous choice to venture into the unknown. It opened up design space. It turned out for me that 4th edition wasn't what I wanted. It is not a guarantee of enjoyment that someone worked hard on something. I feel it is helpful to having a good discussion to point out the straw man. I did not say that you would or should read rules wondering how long they took to come up. The rules that are hardest and most effortful to come up with are paradoxically likely to be the ones that feel most natural and least effortful when you read them. But I didn't say that it was a factor in your personal game buying. For all I know, what you need to hear is that they used a particular shade of puce on page 13. What I did say is that a rule set is more probably enjoyable if that set has been laboured on with time, skill and care. That is in the nature of an argument for convincing. Given a random player, more probably they will enjoy a rule set that was crafted with care, time and skill. If you are a gamer then it increases the [I]probability[/I] that you will enjoy the rules to know about those things. It may not be a conscious factor in your game buying, but that is irrelevant. I didn't say it would be, or that that mattered. If 5th was shoddily put together then I would have pointed that out to you instead. I think you will come back to me on this - if at all - with evasion (ah, but my special tastes and situation require etc). Much as you have every other post in this thread. Basically trolling, but in a way that provokes some nice discussion so can be tolerated :P [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convince me to Spend the Money
Top