D&D 5E Don't Throw 5e Away Because of Hasbro

[KYRON45]

It's currently about WotC being evil because they once hired the Pinkertons, who then followed someone with stolen magic cards all the way to Bolivia and made them jump off a cliff. Or something like that.

The WotC cliff diving team stands a good chance of winning the World Cup bowl competition this year.

 

[Micah Sweet]

W

I'm talking about taking a product (Monster Menagerie)which has been released, can be used and viewed in its entirety and has been for a while and then using a few previews of another product (Monster Manual) to then state definitively one product(Monster Menagerie) is more usable than the other (Monster Manual). My point was why assert something we have no way of knowing at this time.

A person can assert something truthfully if there is enough evidence for them to make that assertion. You don't get to decide how much evidence that needs to be.

 

[Imaro]

A person can assert something truthfully if there is enough evidence for them to make that assertion. You don't get to decide how much evidence that needs to be.

Yes but if claims are made about something as a whole in practice... the minimum would logically be the whole product in practice. The claim itself can set the parameters.

Or is claiming car A handles better than car B even though you've never driven car B and it doesn't go on sale for another month what you would consider an acceptable level of evidence to make said assertion?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes but if claims are made about something as a whole in practice... the minimum would logically be the whole product in practice. The claim itself can set the parameters.

Or is claiming car A handles better than car B even though you've never driven car B and it doesn't go on sale for another month what you would consider an acceptable level of evidence to make said assertion?

If I had enough information for me to feel confident about the handling of car B, like some video or schematics, part of the owner's manual, then yeah, I'd be good with making that assertion.

 

[Imaro]

If I had enough information for me to feel confident about the handling of car B, like some video or schematics, part of the owner's manual, then yeah, I'd be good with making that assertion.

Then you should also expect to get called out on the fact that you have no real experience driving car B but made an assertion about that very thing. You have the right to your oppinion... not for the right to it never being questioned or scrutinized... Or is that the acttual argument, that you can not get questioned on how and what evidence you used to arrive at said oppinion? If everyone sets their own burden of proof for asserting something... well then we can all assert whatever we want and never be questioned on it's validity.

I'm pretty much done here.

 

[Faolyn]

For arguments sak let's say it is everything, any way the book could or does make the monsters in them more useabe (thought I don't think it is)

Are you actually saying you think I copypasted only parts of the pages to make the 5.24 book look bad?

Well, you can look the 5.24 gargoyle up on the monster-related threads here--seriously, the next page is gelatinous cube; in LU, it's genies--and you can look up the LU gargoyles here, on their website.

Too much information often detracts from usability

Now this is just really sad. You're so desperate to poo-poo anyone who tries to say "Hey, I don't need the 5.24 books because I can get what I want elsewhere, and I think those books did it better" that you're desperately grasping at any straw you can to find fault.

Besides, while "too much information" can detract from usability, that happens when you mix fluff with crunch (like in the AD&D years, when you really had to go over the text with a fine-toothed comb to ensure you didn't miss anything), not when you provide completely optional tables off to the side.

Maybe I should have compared two monsters with spellcasting abilities. The LU monsters have enough info for the spells that you don't have to look them up in the book--or hover over a link--to find out what it does.

and it's not just that it's also the actual design of the book... that's what I mean by how easy it is for me to identify the actual stat block in the MM (It actually stands out cleanly) while in the other book everything seems to run together, there's no color differentiation and there are text blocks upon text blocks that don't really make it clear where the actual stat block is I need to run it...

Again, I could find the LU statblock easily. You're just not used to it.

How much of that information do I really need to run a quick 3 round encounter and how much is supperfluous to that... how much do I need to run the monsters in more prolonged usage and how much is superfluous to that and what is just superfluous or not overall...

You personally? Maybe not a lot.

A GM who has memorized the statblocks, or who doesn't care about the actual stats and just runs what feels right? Maybe not a lot.

A relatively new GM, or a GM who has to run a random encounter on the fly and needs info now, or who wants some inspiration to spice up a planned encounter, or has never used gargoyles before? Probably quite a lot.

Question: the 5.24 gargoyle contains tables for "gargoyle sculptures" (their appearance, just like in LU) and "gargoyle camouflage" (which LU doesn't have). Is that also too much information? Or is that level of information OK because it's 5.24?

I'd have a better feel if I'd run games with the actual books. Especially if I'm an influencer who regularly reviews products and I'm just declaring one better without having used the other at all...

I have no idea what this has to do with anything. The vast, vast majority of gamers aren't influencers.

But if we're going for digital vs. physical, I have the LU Monstrous Menagerie as a physical book. However, my vision has degraded enough in my old age that I prefer digital versions because I can enlarge the text.

Which is another reason I'm choosing to not buy 5.24. They're not likely to produce large-print physical books anytime soon, and I don't want to rent the books via DDB. I want to own them as pdfs.

No I explain it above it's the actual design that throws me not unfamiliarity.

No, that's your unfamiliarity. Maybe the LU book could be a bit more colorful or have thicker dividing lines, but that has nothing to do with the quality of the material presented. A monster book could be absolutely beautiful and a masterpiece of graphic design and still be filled with unplayable garbage. Or it could be the simplest plain text with grayscale art, or even no art, and still be filled with innovating, evocative, useful monsters.

And again, this is why what you're saying is so sad. SlyFlourish said they found the LU book to be more useful, and for some reason, the idea that they prefer something other than 5.24 is bothering you to so much that you're nitpicking the text's headers in order to say LU is inferior.

Why, why, why is it so important to you that people buy 5.24?

 

[Imaro]

Are you actually saying you think I copypasted only parts of the pages to make the 5.24 book look bad?

No, I'm saying even something like the layout of the book contributes to usability. That's why to me it's such an absurd claim without having seen the book.

Well, you can look the 5.24 gargoyle up on the monster-related threads here--seriously, the next page is gelatinous cube; in LU, it's genies--and you can look up the LU gargoyles here, on their website.

Again missin the point, the claim wasn't whether a single monster was more usable than another it was on whether one book was more usable than another. You keep showing pieces and claiming they represent the entirety. Ever heard of the 3 blind men and the elephant?

Now this is just really sad. You're so desperate to poo-poo anyone who tries to say "Hey, I don't need the 5.24 books because I can get what I want elsewhere, and I think those books did it better" that you're desperately grasping at any straw you can to find fault.

SIGH No if the claim had been tthe TotV PHB or Level Up PHB worked better for them for what they wanted I'd be fine with that, wouldn't have even commented since this is purely subjective. But it's not saying I don't need this, it's making an objective judgement on a value for 2 books and stating it without a qualifier when you haven't seen the second book or actually used it... you know to see how usable it is.

Besides, while "too much information" can detract from usability, that happens when you mix fluff with crunch (like in the AD&D years, when you really had to go over the text with a fine-toothed comb to ensure you didn't miss anything), not when you provide completely optional tables off to the side.

Usability can be impacted by presenting too much information and/or options to y9our user. Especially if they are new and don't know what is or is not optional. Again at a glance one of these spreads looks crowded and hard to navigate for pertinent information. Now if I actually used it over the course of a game or campaign and saw that wasn't true that would just be another argument for what I'm saying... but many won't get there because they will look at it in a store or as a preview and it will seem cluttereed and intimidating.

Maybe I should have compared two monsters with spellcasting abilities. The LU monsters have enough info for the spells that you don't have to look them up in the book--or hover over a link--to find out what it does.

But if I'm playing online... hovering over a link isn't less usable. it's having the info right there but out of the way when I don't need it. I can see argument s for either one so far as usability goes.

Again, I could find the LU statblock easily. You're just not used to it.

Do you represent everyone now? And this probably illustrates why statemens like A is more usable than B should probably have qualifiers. Since yeah familiarity is part of usability.

You personally? Maybe not a lot.

A GM who has memorized the statblocks, or who doesn't care about the actual stats and just runs what feels right? Maybe not a lot.

A relatively new GM, or a GM who has to run a random encounter on the fly and needs info now, or who wants some inspiration to spice up a planned encounter, or has never used gargoyles before? Probably quite a lot.

Question: the 5.24 gargoyle contains tables for "gargoyle sculptures" (their appearance, just like in LU) and "gargoyle camouflage" (which LU doesn't have). Is that also too much information? Or is that level of information OK because it's 5.24?

No it depends on the person... I haven't made a statement on which is better. I made an argument for waiting and comparing the 2 books in actual usage... apparently tha has now somehow become me saying the MM is more usable... so here's a challlenge... find anywhere I stated this? Anywhere as opposed to questioning how the comparison can be made at this time whn one book is fully acessible while another isn't out yet. I'll wait.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything. The vast, vast majority of gamers aren't influencers.

But if we're going for digital vs. physical, I have the LU Monstrous Menagerie as a physical book. However, my vision has degraded enough in my old age that I prefer digital versions because I can enlarge the text.

Which is another reason I'm choosing to not buy 5.24. They're not likely to produce large-print physical books anytime soon, and I don't want to rent the books via DDB. I want to own them as pdfs.

Cool, and I can respect your personal preferences...

No, that's your unfamiliarity. Maybe the LU book could be a bit more colorful or have thicker dividing lines, but that has nothing to do with the quality of the material presented. A monster book could be absolutely beautiful and a masterpiece of graphic design and still be filled with unplayable garbage. Or it could be the simplest plain text with grayscale art, or even no art, and still be filled with innovating, evocative, useful monsters.

But the claim wasn't about the quality... it was usability.

And again, this is why what you're saying is so sad. SlyFlourish said they found the LU book to be more useful, and for some reason, the idea that they prefer something other than 5.24 is bothering you to so much that you're nitpicking the text's headers in order to say LU is inferior.

Why, why, why is it so important to you that people buy 5.24?

Nope you're missing my point entirely and arguing against a strawman. Again show me where I stated that the MM was a better book for usability? I'll wait. If not please start addressing my actual point. You're so desperate to paint me as a D&D fanboy as opposed to addressing my actual argument (which arguably has been a trend in this thread). I wonder if it wasn't WotC would we be as okay with a judgement on it's usability (and remember this is what we are speaking to, nothing else) being made pre-release and with no usage having taken place yet. I doubt it.

 

[Faolyn]

No, I'm saying even something like the layout of the book contributes to usability. That's why to me it's such an absurd claim without having seen the book.

We've seen the layout of the individual pages. I don't need to know how the table of contents is organized to know if the monsters are laid out well or contain useful information.

Again missin the point, the claim wasn't whether a single monster was more usable than another it was on whether one book was more usable than another. You keep showing pieces and claiming they represent the entirety. Ever heard of the 3 blind men and the elephant?

No, Sly's claim is that they got more useful information for each monster out of Level Up's Menagerie than he does from D&D books.

You are moving the goalposts by talking about the book's layout in general.

Usability can be impacted by presenting too much information and/or options to y9our user. Especially if they are new and don't know what is or is not optional.

From the Menagerie:

"Optional." "For inspiration only; feel free to use another setting's lore or invent your own."

I guess you should have looked at the entire book before you decided, huh?

Again at a glance one of these spreads looks crowded and hard to navigate for pertinent information.

Again, you're nitpicking and moving goalposts. Sly was talking about how they felt the book was more useful. How 'bout instead of saying "but, but, the kerning!" you instead look at the actual content, hmm?

Now if I actually used it over the course of a game or campaign and saw that wasn't true that would just be another argument for what I'm saying... but many won't get there because they will look at it in a store or as a preview and it will seem cluttereed and intimidating.

Welp, their loss for not actually reading it.

Which is what you're saying about me, for not looking over the entire MM24 before making a judgement call, right?

In fact, I don't think you're allowed to say anything else non-positive about the LU MM until you've actually read the entire book. That's only fair.

But if I'm playing online... hovering over a link isn't less usable.

Yes it is. I have to move my mouse around, possibly several times if I forget the rules between uses of the ability, meaning I can't easily concentrate on other aspects of the encounter. That's going to be terrible for people who have mobility issues, poor short-term memories, or whose mouse or internet decides to crap out on them.

Also, in my opinion, that's an absolutely crappy and greedy way to write a book, since it means I can only get full use if I buy a subscription to DDB. What happens if I only have the books with me?

Oh, and while I'm at it: here's a spell entry for guiding bolt, from the NPC priest.

No hovering needed, and I can use the info.

In comparison, here's the same spell taken from the MM24's gold dragon:

View attachment 393462

I can say with 100% certainty that in comparison, the gold dragon's entry is not useful.

Do you represent everyone now? And this probably illustrates why statemens like A is more usable than B should probably have qualifiers. Since yeah familiarity is part of usability.

You're saying that the LU design is objectively bad, or at least worse than the MM design. Do you represent everyone now?

I made an argument for waiting and comparing the 2 books in actual usage...

So your answer is that people should spend money they may not have to buy the books to compare them before they're allowed to have an opinion. How privileged, to think we can all afford to do that!

Or are you saying that we should wait until we watch review videos made by influencers and take their opinion as gospel? If an influence says that the book is bad or un-useful, are we allowed to listen to them, or must we only listen to positive reviews?

Too much information often detracts from usability and it's not just that it's also the actual design of the book... that's what I mean by how easy it is for me to identify the actual stat block in the MM (It actually stands out cleanly) while in the other book everything seems to run together, there's no color differentiation and there are text blocks upon text blocks that don't really make it clear where the actual stat block is I need to run it... How much of that information do I really need to run a quick 3 round encounter and how much is supperfluous to that... how much do I need to run the monsters in more prolonged usage and how much is superfluous to that and what is just superfluous or not overall... I'd have a better feel if I'd run games with the actual books. Especially if I'm an influencer who regularly reviews products and I'm just declaring one better without having used the other at all...

There's one. That whole paragraph is about how the MM is better because it doesn't have "superfluous" information and because, in your opinion, it's laid out better, but the bolded bits are far more specific about it.

(Thinking about this paragraph again, it's quite short-sighted. Who says that I only use a monster for a "quick 3 round encounter"? My monsters have lives outside of combat. Some of that information in LU is useful for fleshing them out as living, thinking beings.)

But the claim wasn't about the quality... it was usability.

You haven't shown that the LU Menagerie is unusable or less usable. Just that you don't like how its laid out.

Nope you're missing my point entirely and arguing against a strawman. Again show me where I stated that the MM was a better book for usability? I'll wait. If not please start addressing my actual point. You're so desperate to paint me as a D&D fanboy as opposed to addressing my actual argument (which arguably has been a trend in this thread).

Your argument started with "SlyFlourish is disparaging the MM by saying that to them, the LU Menagerie looks more useful," when he hasn't even seen any of it.

And when I pointed out that you could compare some of the monsters side-by-side, you started talking about tiny details of design rather than focusing on the quality of the content.

I wonder if it wasn't WotC would we be as okay with a judgement on it's usability

We haven't been talking about other monster books. If SlyFlourish wanted to say that the ToV Monster Vault is the Best Monster Book Evah!!1!, then I could probably argue with him about it, since personally I was underwhelmed.

But he hasn't.

 

[Imaro]

We've seen the layout of the individual pages. I don't need to know how the table of contents is organized to know if the monsters are laid out well or contain useful information.


No, Sly's claim is that they got more useful information for each monster out of Level Up's Menagerie than he does from D&D books.

You are moving the goalposts by talking about the book's layout in general.


From the Menagerie:

View attachment 393453

"Optional." "For inspiration only; feel free to use another setting's lore or invent your own."

I guess you should have looked at the entire book before you decided, huh?


Again, you're nitpicking and moving goalposts. Sly was talking about how they felt the book was more useful. How 'bout instead of saying "but, but, the kerning!" you instead look at the actual content, hmm?


Welp, their loss for not actually reading it.

Which is what you're saying about me, for not looking over the entire MM24 before making a judgement call, right?

In fact, I don't think you're allowed to say anything else non-positive about the LU MM until you've actually read the entire book. That's only fair.


Yes it is. I have to move my mouse around, possibly several times if I forget the rules between uses of the ability, meaning I can't easily concentrate on other aspects of the encounter. That's going to be terrible for people who have mobility issues, poor short-term memories, or whose mouse or internet decides to crap out on them.

Also, in my opinion, that's an absolutely crappy and greedy way to write a book, since it means I can only get full use if I buy a subscription to DDB. What happens if I only have the books with me?

Oh, and while I'm at it: here's a spell entry for guiding bolt, from the NPC priest.

View attachment 393463

No hovering needed, and I can use the info.

In comparison, here's the same spell taken from the MM24's gold dragon:

View attachment 393462

I can say with 100% certainty that in comparison, the gold dragon's entry is not useful.


You're saying that the LU design is objectively bad, or at least worse than the MM design. Do you represent everyone now?


So your answer is that people should spend money they may not have to buy the books to compare them before they're allowed to have an opinion. How privileged, to think we can all afford to do that!

Or are you saying that we should wait until we watch review videos made by influencers and take their opinion as gospel? If an influence says that the book is bad or un-useful, are we allowed to listen to them, or must we only listen to positive reviews?


There's one. That whole paragraph is about how the MM is better because it doesn't have "superfluous" information and because, in your opinion, it's laid out better, but the bolded bits are far more specific about it.

(Thinking about this paragraph again, it's quite short-sighted. Who says that I only use a monster for a "quick 3 round encounter"? My monsters have lives outside of combat. Some of that information in LU is useful for fleshing them out as living, thinking beings.)


You haven't shown that the LU Menagerie is unusable or less usable. Just that you don't like how its laid out.


Your argument started with "SlyFlourish is disparaging the MM by saying that to them, the LU Menagerie looks more useful," when he hasn't even seen any of it.

And when I pointed out that you could compare some of the monsters side-by-side, you started talking about tiny details of design rather than focusing on the quality of the content.


We haven't been talking about other monster books. If SlyFlourish wanted to say that the ToV Monster Vault is the Best Monster Book Evah!!1!, then I could probably argue with him about it, since personally I was underwhelmed.

But he hasn't.

Yeah at this point we are talking past each other the claim was about how useful one book vs. The other is without having seen one book. You're willing to accept that a couple of pages is enough to determine that... I'm not. There's no seeing eye to eye here. So we should agree to disagree.

Also I see you still haven't shown where I claimed the MM was the better book or are we now ignoring that claim you made and moving onto others?

 

[Faolyn]

Yeah at this point we are talking past each other the claim was about how useful one book vs. The other is without having seen one book. You're willing to accept that a couple of pages is enough to determine that... I'm not. There's no seeing eye to eye here. So we should agree to disagree.

Also I see you still haven't shown where I claimed the MM was the better book or are we now ignoring that claim you made and moving onto others?

I literally quoted you. You're choosing to ignore that.