Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9548395" data-attributes="member: 6790260">If this were a thread about how each individual one of us does things, the argument would be 100% irrelevant. That would be an &quot;is&quot; conversation.Note the thread title. Emphasis added: &quot;How Often Should a PC Die in D&amp;D 5e?&quot; This is an &quot;ought&quot; conversation. It is saying how things ought to be. In other words, it is setting, to at least some degree, a normative standard, a jumping-off point or baseline which must be modified away from. Always, some trace of a default must exist, even if it is pretty minimal. 5e does not have a minimal default, but rather a pretty extensive one--tailored to consumer surveys.But, if you like, I am quite happy to never use the &quot;popularity&quot; argument ever again. If I do do that, though, I won't accept criticisms of other things that are based on whether they were popular, well-received, or well-understood by the audience at the time. Obviously I'm talking about 4e here, but it goes for any game.When house-ruling is sufficient to &quot;make these games play the way we want&quot;, anything goes. Every game can be made to play the way you want. The term has been devalued into uselessness. In other words, [USER=81515]@krillinfan[/USER]'s argument remains and you've done nothing whatever to actually refute it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9548395, member: 6790260"] If this were a thread about how each individual one of us does things, the argument would be 100% irrelevant. That would be an "is" conversation. Note the thread title. Emphasis added: "How Often [B]Should[/B] a PC Die in D&D 5e?" This is an "ought" conversation. It is saying how things [I]ought[/I] to be. In other words, it is setting, to at least some degree, a normative standard, a jumping-off point or baseline which must be modified away from. Always, some trace of a default must exist, even if it is pretty minimal. 5e does not have a minimal default, but rather a pretty extensive one--tailored to consumer surveys. But, if you like, I am quite happy to never use the "popularity" argument ever again. If I do do that, though, I won't accept criticisms of other things that are based on whether they were popular, well-received, or well-understood by the audience at the time. Obviously I'm talking about 4e here, but it goes for any game. When house-ruling is sufficient to "make these games play the way we want", [I]anything goes[/I]. Every game can be made to play the way you want. The term has been devalued into uselessness. In other words, [USER=81515]@krillinfan[/USER]'s argument remains and you've done nothing whatever to actually refute it. [/QUOTE]

Verification