Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Data from a million DnDBeyond character sheets?
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9069044" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Yes. Note the words you used, vs. the words almost everyone is using in this context.</p><p></p><p>The mechanics <strong>ARE JUST FINE</strong>. They aren't amazing. They aren't the most wonderful thing ever. Nor are they bad or wrong or heinous. They're (at least) tolerable to most players. Which is what I have been claiming this whole time! I literally said that's why I quoted the Declaration of Independence.</p><p></p><p>And, most crucially, again in your own words, there is no evidence that the Fighter mechanics are broadly <strong>liked or disliked</strong>. So any argument which <em>starts</em> from the position, "Because X is liked, absolutely no changes should be made to its mechanics" is wrongheaded. One must instead defend <em>why</em> either (a) this specific set of mechanics is necessary and anything else would be unacceptable, or (b) whatever alternative mechanics are proposed (note, I have not done so at all in this conversation, for several reasons!) are unacceptable, though there might be some other set that would be.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Just so I'm absolutely, 100% clear:</p><p></p><p>They want something <em>more simple than they like</em>.</p><p></p><p>Because that is what "simplistic" means. Not just that it is simple; that it is <em>undesirably</em> simple.</p><p></p><p>They desire something undesirable. You are specifically claiming they desire something that would be undesirable to them. That is what you are saying, correct?</p><p></p><p>Because I hope those sentences explain why I find that genuinely unbelievable. I can (and do!) believe that they want something <em>extremely</em> simple. Maximally simple, even. But I cannot believe that they desire something <em>that they would call excessively simple</em>. I can (and do!) believe that they might have, whether properly or simply practically, no limit for how simple something can be--if it could be made simpler, they would want it so, no matter how simple its current state.</p><p></p><p>But I cannot believe that they want something to be so simple <strong>that they wouldn't want it</strong>. Because that is a contradiction.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9069044, member: 6790260"] Yes. Note the words you used, vs. the words almost everyone is using in this context. The mechanics [B]ARE JUST FINE[/B]. They aren't amazing. They aren't the most wonderful thing ever. Nor are they bad or wrong or heinous. They're (at least) tolerable to most players. Which is what I have been claiming this whole time! I literally said that's why I quoted the Declaration of Independence. And, most crucially, again in your own words, there is no evidence that the Fighter mechanics are broadly [B]liked or disliked[/B]. So any argument which [I]starts[/I] from the position, "Because X is liked, absolutely no changes should be made to its mechanics" is wrongheaded. One must instead defend [I]why[/I] either (a) this specific set of mechanics is necessary and anything else would be unacceptable, or (b) whatever alternative mechanics are proposed (note, I have not done so at all in this conversation, for several reasons!) are unacceptable, though there might be some other set that would be. Just so I'm absolutely, 100% clear: They want something [I]more simple than they like[/I]. Because that is what "simplistic" means. Not just that it is simple; that it is [I]undesirably[/I] simple. They desire something undesirable. You are specifically claiming they desire something that would be undesirable to them. That is what you are saying, correct? Because I hope those sentences explain why I find that genuinely unbelievable. I can (and do!) believe that they want something [I]extremely[/I] simple. Maximally simple, even. But I cannot believe that they desire something [I]that they would call excessively simple[/I]. I can (and do!) believe that they might have, whether properly or simply practically, no limit for how simple something can be--if it could be made simpler, they would want it so, no matter how simple its current state. But I cannot believe that they want something to be so simple [B]that they wouldn't want it[/B]. Because that is a contradiction. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Data from a million DnDBeyond character sheets?
Top