D&D General Explain Bounded Accuracy to Me (As if I Was Five)

[Crimson Longinus]

Nope. You can keep saying that all you like, that doesn't make it true.

Like your constant complaints about 5e.

But your point was that it makes sense for people to passively learn things. And yeah, maybe. But it absolutely does not make sense for them to passively learn them to that degree, and not even remotely close. If we asses the "sensemakery" no learning certainly ranks way higher on that than learning that overwhelms actual training by threefold. You cannot just then say "it is an abstraction" if your original complaint was about making sense, as this abstraction makes even less sense.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Look, can't we all just agree that every single version of D&D sucks when it doesn't do what we'd prefer it would as players? LOL!

Complaining about every other version of D&D except for the one we like accomplishes little other than just releasing the pressure valve on our pent-up steam.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Look, can't we all just agree that every single version of D&D sucks when it doesn't do what we'd prefer it would as players? LOL!

Complaining about every other version of D&D except for the one we like accomplishes little other than just releasing the pressure valve on our pent-up steam.

There are also other things it does. But I don't see it as productive (nor at all related to the thread topic) to discuss that.

 

[payn]

Look, can't we all just agree that every single version of D&D sucks when it doesn't do what we'd prefer it would as players? LOL!

Complaining about every other version of D&D except for the one we like accomplishes little other than just releasing the pressure valve on our pent-up steam.

 

[michaeljpastor]

This morning I am having a laugh at the irony that the discussion is now 66 pages long, and the title "Explain it to me like I'm five years old."

By which time, the hypothetical five-year old would have long left the room to go play Legos while his Uncles continued to bicker and joust until Gramma calls for dinner.

 

[Minigiant]

Look, can't we all just agree that every single version of D&D sucks when it doesn't do what we'd prefer it would as players? LOL!

Complaining about every other version of D&D except for the one we like accomplishes little other than just releasing the pressure valve on our pent-up steam.

No. Can't agree.

To me, the problem is not really the editions but the designers biases or favoritism in the subsystems on top of the edition mechanics.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, a bad one.

Can we keep the conversation constructive, please? Thanks much.

 

[Umbran]

No. Can't agree.

To me, the problem is not really the editions but the designers biases or favoritism in the subsystems on top of the edition mechanics.

I mean, designers are going to pick designs, and tend to stick with them. Is a guy who makes chairs showing "bias" or "favoritism" when they work mostly in the Shaker style? The terms you are using are typically applied in considering an approach to people, and carry connotations that I don't know should be applied to game design.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, a bad one.

That sort of question is, and can't be anything but, a matter of taste. Very few games actually give a damn about training as such after initial rest state.

 

[Minigiant]

I mean, designers are going to pick designs, and tend to stick with them. Is a guy who makes chairs showing "bias" or "favoritism" when they work mostly in the Shaker style? The terms you are using are typically applied in considering an approach to people, and carry connotations that I don't know should be applied to game design.

To me, it feels fair to claim if game designers openly state design goals and let some design goals cause other design goals to not be met that the designers prioritized some goals over others.