Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8661349" data-attributes="member: 6790260">For my part, there is no anger. I just don't get why they are angry, and find the offered explanations confusing at best and contradictory at worst.Whether or not playing 5e as a heavy, focused simulation game is actually supported by its design (a whole separate topic) seems pretty irrelevant to the DM. That is, the argument you're making here is from the perspective of a player. Players don't look at monster statblocks, or at least they very rarely do, and that's unequivocally by design. DMs look at statblocks. DMs do objectively un-simulationist things (like illusionism, "quantum ogres," fudging, etc.) in order to run the game. DMs play a critical part in inventing and developing the world, whether as its sole author or as a facilitator for player contributions or anywhere in-between. By definition, the DM cannot choose to totally disengage from the brute mechanical aspects of the game, that's literally part of their function in simulationist D&D design.So...why are the people who have to look beneath the skin of the simulation complaining that they have to do so?Then this is a key sticking point. I disagree. What does the statblock fail to say that the evoker can do? Does the statblock have to specify whether a creature is capable of whistling for you to be able to decide whether the creature does, in fact, whistle to get someone's attention?I'm deeply confused. Why couldn't the evoker do that as written? You're already willing to adapt things (metaphorically speaking) "off-script." Why do you need the book to tell you that you're allowed as DM to do this? Why can't you just decide that this evoker can do that because she used to sneak into locked areas to alter her work so it would get better grades, but that evoker can't because he was a bit of a rake and chose to focus his electives on charms and illusions instead (even if he never actually got the attention of the wizball quarterback...)This is why I brought up, way up thread, that people complained so bitterly about how limiting and stifling the rules of 4e were. Why do you need the book to give you permission to do this?It's not at all that I think they have no point. It's that the points they have either seem to be simply incorrect (the statblock allegedly failing to describe what the creature can do), or correct but irrelevant (simulationist play requires DMs who know the nuts and bolts behind the simulation, and the sim-focused players, generally speaking, don't look at statblocks), or contradictory with the openly-described expectations of 5e design (e.g. you don't need rules ever, rules are just suggestions, etc.)To be honest: I have no idea what a "rules-light simulation" means. Like, I literally don't see how those two terms can interact, at all, period. To be a simulation, the game must tell you what happens as clearly and completely as possible. To be rules-light, the game must do relatively few things and leave most information to decision-makers (frequently, though not exclusively, the coordinating player, aka the DM for D&D). Where is the intersection?And if this seeming conflict is just that, a seeming and nothing more, if you're able to do what you want with light rules and explain the rest yourself, why do you need the book to tell you these things? If you're comfortable inventing everything else about the world--and dealing with the bizarre eccentricities like hit points and attack rolls and tridents that are objectively inferior to spears in all possible ways and yet classified as a superior weapon type etc., etc.--then why on Earth do you need extra rules that tell you specifically which spells this specific evoker can cast? You're already comfortable making a million decisions purely based on what you think is reasonable. Why aren't spells on that list? Why are they this intensely necessary, "No, if the monster doesn't say it, I literally cannot decide otherwise!"?Because it's a weasel-word debate tactic. You are advancing a point. As part of doing so, you appeal to an unstated, non-participating community that you allege exists. This is, very specifically, an effort to strengthen that point; if it were not intended to strengthen your point, you wouldn't say it. But neither you nor I have any idea what the demographics involved are. We have, at absolute best, incredibly biased personal experiences of the D&D community. Hence, you are trying to lay claim to a strong argument ("a sizable and important section of the relevant population agrees with me, thus our desire is the most important concern and should be met, even despite other relevant concerns") when in reality that argument is quite weak ("anecdotally, I have observed several people desiring this, therefore there must be a lot of us, therefore our desire is the most important concern and should be met, even despite other relevant concerns.")Calling someone out for an appeal to popularity, as with any informal fallacy, doesn't make your conclusion wrong. But we don't have to agree with a conclusion drawn from that informal fallacy.I certainly don't.</blockquote>

Verification