D&D 5E Krynn's Free Feats: setting-specific or the future of the game?

[Maxperson]

Gatekeeping
1. The activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something.

From the article: "What Does ‘Gatekeeping’ Mean in RPGs?"

Hot Tip: It means the exact same thing as it does everywhere else: Because Dictionary.

Hot tip, new definitions happen and Gatekeeping in RPGs doesn't mean what you think it means.

The author "Dan" then writes:
"One fun thing about gatekeepers is that they don’t all agree with each other. But the most consistent thing about them is that they are very adamant about their opinions."

He is premise seems to be that people with opinions that say things you disagree with are "gatekeeping", because said opinions are somehow on others gameplaying buzz. By magic or something.

No. That is not his premise. The premise is what he said it was here, "It simply means someone who feels as if they can judge the right or wrong way to do something." Such as what you are doing by declaring removing death to not be D&D. You are declaring that the wrong way to be playing D&D.

He is intentionally trying to redefine the term with a purely emotional appeal to the desire of not wanting to be judged because feelings, or something.

Not him. The gaming community.

Your whole argument is about showing you a hard line...

Where I am talking about paradigms of play. Concepts.

This has shown me that you obviously don't accept even the premise of my argument - you could have just led with that.

No point in continuing as obviously no headway will be made either way.

Your paradigms of play require a hard line in order to have any sort of objective truth. If you'd just acknowledge that you are relying on subjective opinion that only applies to you, we wouldn't be having this discussion. These paradigm shifts are not against how the game is supposed to be played. None of them. Major shifts are part and parcel of D&D. They are even mentioned in the 5e DMG.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm just here to chortle over the days-late belligerent reply that thinks 'appeal to authority' means 'references the literal rules of a game'.

Just... so much digital ink spilt to justify yelling at people for playing a game that specifically says you can change to rules as you see fit 'wrong'.

I'm hoping for a dictionary definition for 'rule' or 'game' next.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm just here to chortle over the days-late belligerent reply that thinks 'appeal to authority' means 'references the literal rules of a game'.

Just... so much digital ink spilt to justify yelling at people for playing a game that specifically says you can change to rules as you see fit 'wrong'.

I'm hoping for a dictionary definition for 'rule' or 'game' next.

The 5e DMG also has several optional rules that are far more game changing than taking death off of the table.

 

[Parmandur]

The 5e DMG also has several optional rules that are far more game changing than taking death off of the table.

But how could we ever know? Since nobody reads the DMG, putting anything there is akin to hiding it in a deep dungeon.

 

[Maxperson]

But how could we ever know? Since nobody reads the DMG, putting anything there is akin to hiding it in a deep dungeon.

Some of us love dungeon crawls, buddy!

 

[teitan]

I have a gut feeling that some elements of 5e that are optional are shifting to "not optional" and feats are one of them. They won't explode in quantity but they will become a core rule.

When 5e launched they had a much more limited budget to dedicate to development so a lot of the things that were taken for granted and filler in 3.x and 4e like feats became optional rules because they couldn't crank out books of them like before. How long until we got a new supplement with feats in it and even then people were upset at the lack of quantity? Now we have diminished expectations for quantity of feats in new books. This paves a way for them to make them core and also not to overtake the simplicity of the current core design.

What will happen is a reversal, Feats will be core with ASI being the optional rule instead. It will read "you receive a new feat every four levels" and then an optional side bar with the sidebar being "As an optional rule, with the DM's approval, you may take an ASI in place of a feat every fourth level".

I also have a feeling that they will have it that you get a "free" feat at first level.

They will try to give us a more robust character creation and development system. They aren't working with a fractured market anymore but they're also looking at fatigue slowly building for 5e and post-pandemic inflation and shifts in how entertainment dollars are being spent. Netflix got hit hard and AMC is up for example. Action figures, which boomed in the pandemic, are starting to level out in sales with Target dropping Marvel Legends in a lot of their markets.

As D&D starts to be treated more and more like a luxury product, which is a reversal of all approaches to past editions, and the prices climb, other games will become more attractive. They need to compete, they can't become complacent and that does mean a more robust design with more options for character development beyond the choices represented in levels 1-3 and feats are their best options for providing those choices while also maintaining compatibility that they are promising with currently published materials. Sub-classes are a great option but they are a 1 time decision. The system, without feats, after 3rd level, is pretty much autopilot. They MAY treat it as "alternative class features" instead though. We will see.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I have a gut feeling that some elements of 5e that are optional are shifting to "not optional" and feats are one of them. They won't explode in quantity but they will become a core rule.

When 5e launched they had a much more limited budget to dedicate to development so a lot of the things that were taken for granted and filler in 3.x and 4e like feats became optional rules because they couldn't crank out books of them like before. How long until we got a new supplement with feats in it and even then people were upset at the lack of quantity? Now we have diminished expectations for quantity of feats in new books. This paves a way for them to make them core and also not to overtake the simplicity of the current core design.

What will happen is a reversal, Feats will be core with ASI being the optional rule instead. It will read "you receive a new feat every four levels" and then an optional side bar with the sidebar being "As an optional rule, with the DM's approval, you may take an ASI in place of a feat every fourth level".

I also have a feeling that they will have it that you get a "free" feat at first level.

Victory!

Now for subclass at Level 1 and taking magic item pricing and creation seriously.

 

[James Gasik]

Victory!

Now for subclass at Level 1 and taking magic item pricing and creation seriously.

Woah now, let's not get carried away here! That would mean WotC would have to try and balance magic items somehow! Far easier to be like "yeah, your game needs these things, but we're not going to be blamed if handing out a Staff of Power breaks your game- you're on your own!".

 

[SkidAce]

...Far easier to be like "yeah, your game needs these things, but we're not going to be blamed if handing out a Staff of Power breaks your game- you're on your own!".

easier and BETTER!

 

[Jaeger]

Hot tip, new definitions happen and Gatekeeping in RPGs doesn't mean what you think it means.

Yes it does. Because dictionary.

You are openly denying what a word means in the English language.

Not him. The gaming community.

Still no.

The definition of words is not his, mine, yours, or the "gaming community's" call to make on all societies behalf.

For someone who ostensibly wants objective truth, you seem to be all too willing to readily discard it when it suits your purposes to do so.

Since you are obviously incapable of accepting the actual dictionary definition of a word; I can only conclude that your appeals for objectivity are in bad faith at best since it is obvious from the above exchange that you only accept the 'objectivity' that you want despite actual empirical evidence to the contrary.

I'm just here to chortle over the days-late belligerent reply that thinks 'appeal to authority' means 'references the literal rules of a game'.

Just... so much digital ink spilt to justify yelling at people for playing a game that specifically says you can change to rules as you see fit 'wrong'.

Yes it was. Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic.

Your citing of 'rule zero' was pointless, fallacious, and of unsound logic because no where did I dispute that the game rules could be changed. And in fact I cited examples of how it commonly was.

You will likewise have a difficult time finding anywhere in my posts that I said anyone was having badwrong fun doing whatever they wanted with the game. In fact, you will find the opposite.

But none of those facts have stopped you repeatedly citing of 'rule zero' against a claim that was never made.

I'm hoping for a dictionary definition for 'rule' or 'game' next.

Seeing as how I had to routinely explain how words were used wrong, and how we now have a open denial of what the dictionary definition of a word means; it would not surprise me in the least that there may be need of such instruction. Reveling in one's ignorance is generally not a good look, but to each their own.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes it does. Because dictionary.

You need to learn about dictionaries and definitions, because meanings of words change. Writing a definition down in a book doesn't keep that definition in stasis.

You are openly denying what a word means in the English language.

Nope. I'm teaching you how language works.

Since you are obviously incapable of accepting the actual dictionary definition of a word; I can only conclude that your appeals for objectivity are in bad faith at best since it is obvious from the above exchange that you only accept the 'objectivity' that you want despite actual empirical evidence to the contrary.

I note you continue to dodge the fact that you are trying to sell your subjective opinion about the game as some sort of objective truth, probably hoping that it will allow you to continue denying that people who remove death from their game are playing D&D. It doesn't work that way.

No matter how you twist and dodge, your opinions won't be fact. People who remove death will continue to be playing D&D no matter how you personally feel about it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You need to learn about dictionaries and definitions, because meanings of words change. Writing a definition down in a book doesn't keep that definition in stasis.

um... was he useing a not updated book or a modern updated website?
I mean I am mostly on your side on this one... but the words as they evolve update

 

[Azzy]

The definition of words is not his, mine, yours, or the "gaming community's" call to make on all societies behalf.

Yes, yes it does. That's how language evolves. Dictionaries are not prescriptive, they are descriptive. If a word or term gets used in an alternate manner in a statistically significant manner, guess what—the dictionary gets a new definition. Welcome to my TED Talk.

 

[Maxperson]

um... was he useing a not updated book or a modern updated website?
I mean I am mostly on your side on this one... but the words as they evolve update

They don't update immediately. Also, the altered definitions need to catch on and see widespread use. The definition of gatekeeping that the RPG community uses is only widespread withing the small percentage of the population that that are RPG players. The dictionary will not have updated based on that.

Nevertheless, the definition that the RPG community uses is the definition of gatekeeping that controls here, not the dictionary version.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Reveling in one's ignorance is generally not a good look

Und yet...

 

[Jaeger]

Nope. I'm teaching you how language works.

No, you're serving as an object lesson in reality denial.

No matter how you twist and dodge, your opinions won't be fact.

Notice in my posts how I preface a lot of what I say with In my opinion...

You may disagree, that's fine.

That you have entirely missed the point I was making is no surprise now that you have doubled down on trying to gaslight me that gatekeeping does not mean what the dictionary says it means.

Nevertheless, the definition that the RPG community uses is the definition of gatekeeping that controls here, not the dictionary version.

And here it is: The "because I say so" defense.

I am also part of the "RPG community" and I only recognize the dictionary definition of gatekeeping. Not the made up one that lets you label anyone that has opinions you don't like.

This of course is the bolt hole you have to run to when you are desperate to not have to backtrack your baseless accusation.

Attempting to assert control by warping accepted definitions is a cowardly tactic.

Und yet...

Yup, still not a good look for you.

 

[Maxperson]

No, you're serving as an object lesson in reality denial.




Notice in my posts how I preface a lot of what I say with In my opinion...

You may disagree, that's fine.

That you have entirely missed the point I was making is no surprise now that you have doubled down on trying to gaslight me that gatekeeping does not mean what the dictionary says it means.




And here it is: The "because I say so" defense.

I am also part of the "RPG community" and I only recognize the dictionary definition of gatekeeping. Not the made up one that lets you label anyone that has opinions you don't like.

This of course is the bolt hole you have to run to when you are desperate to not have to backtrack your baseless accusation.

Attempting to assert control by warping accepted definitions is a cowardly tactic.




Yup, still not a good look for you.

All you have done is evade and twist when confronted and asked to prove your baseless claim that other people are not playing D&D when they remove PC death as an option. Well, that and use Ad Hominem attacks on me instead of presenting your proof.

I'll take your Ad Hominem attacks as an admission that you are aware of how weak your argument is.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The angry DM had a campaign that sounded cool, all the PCs got "Not lich" afied and as such every time they died there souls returned to this gem so they could not die

 

[Jaeger]

All you have done is evade and twist when confronted and asked to prove your baseless claim that other people are not playing D&D when they remove PC death as an option.

I have provided concrete examples and explanations for why I believe that removing death from the game is a sufficient paradigm shift to be able to say that you would be no longer playing the game as intended.

That you disagree with my reasons, outright ignore them, or evidently do not accept them at all is one thing. But I did provide them.

Claims of twisting and evading are rather interesting coming from the guy who cited an article by "Dan" as a cornerstone for his weak attempt at a refutation.

Well, that and use Ad Hominem attacks on me instead of presenting your proof.

So you toss out a false accusation of gatekeeping, and then when I defend myself you try to play the victim.

I've seen this tactic before.

Your go-to rhetorical hammer didn't work this time, someone actually didn't take it sitting down.

I'll take your Ad Hominem attacks as an admission that you are aware of how weak your argument is.

A decent attempt at a rhetorical flounce. If a bit transparent.

Someone defending themselves from your baseless accusations does not make you the victim.

You don't get to light a fire under someone's feet, then turn around and pout about how the bad man burned you.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

@Jaeger @Maxperson , y’all have locked horns and are attacking each other as well as each other’s positions. It might be time for you to take a voluntary break from each other instead of being given an involuntary one.