Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AverageTable" data-source="post: 4364656" data-attributes="member: 71718">No, I'm not joking at all.&nbsp; Nor am I being circular as Psychic Robot claims.&nbsp;I'm also not making any particular claims about the goodness or badness of any particular aspect of the game (e.g. the skill system).&nbsp;What I'm saying is that if someone is going to question the presence, absence, or quality of any aspect of a professionally developed system such as thing one, the onus is very much on the questioner to demonstrate that the system would be better off changed in the way he's suggesting.&nbsp; And, furthermore, if he does try to demonstrate this, the great majority of the time he's going to fail to do so successfully.&nbsp;The developers do this stuff professionally, they've spent years building the game, and their livlihood, pride, and favourite hobby all rest on the choices they make.&nbsp; The result?&nbsp; They're not going to make any choices they don't truly believe to be good ones.&nbsp; So if we, the non-professionals who only first saw the system a month ago, want to question a decision they've made, we have a heavy burden of proof to overcome before we look like anything more than irrational curmudgeons.&nbsp;My overall point, then, was that Psychic Robot hadn't managed to even nudge his burden.&nbsp; Every argument he made was so obvious that it goes without saying the designers had already considered it themselves.&nbsp; Ergo, the absence of a disarm mechanic in the final published rules is extremely strong evidence that none of its supposed advantages was sufficient to outweigh its disadvantages.&nbsp; In turn, anyone who wants to claim that the 4th Edition D&amp;D game is better off with a disarm mechanic needs to offer much more novel and compelling reasons to include one than Psychic Robot has.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AverageTable, post: 4364656, member: 71718"] No, I'm not joking at all. Nor am I being circular as Psychic Robot claims. I'm also not making any [i]particular[/i] claims about the goodness or badness of any [i]particular[/i] aspect of the game (e.g. the skill system). What I'm saying is that if someone is going to question the presence, absence, or quality of any aspect of a professionally developed system such as thing one, the onus is very much on the questioner to demonstrate that the system would be better off changed in the way he's suggesting. And, furthermore, if he [i]does[/i] try to demonstrate this, the great majority of the time he's going to [i]fail[/i] to do so successfully. The developers do this stuff professionally, they've spent years building the game, and their livlihood, pride, and favourite hobby all rest on the choices they make. The result? They're not going to make any choices they don't truly believe to be good ones. So if we, the non-professionals who only first saw the system a month ago, want to question a decision they've made, we have a heavy burden of proof to overcome before we look like anything more than irrational curmudgeons. My overall point, then, was that Psychic Robot hadn't managed to even nudge his burden. Every argument he made was so obvious that it goes without saying the designers had [i]already[/i] considered it themselves. Ergo, the absence of a disarm mechanic in the final published rules is extremely strong evidence that none of its supposed advantages was sufficient to outweigh its disadvantages. In turn, anyone who wants to claim that the 4th Edition D&D game is better off with a disarm mechanic needs to offer much more novel and compelling reasons to include one than Psychic Robot has. [/QUOTE]

Verification