Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
No One Plays High Level?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9207888" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Is it really? It certainly isn't the same level of hasty generalization as the previous. All one needs to do is show that <em>some</em> people have problems to show that, yes, something should probably be done to address them. One does not need to show that <em>absolutely everyone</em> has problems in order to say that there is a problem going on that could be fixed, or at least mitigated.</p><p></p><p>One must in fact actually show that nobody has a problem in order to say that there is no problem at all.</p><p></p><p>And I think, given the many, many, MANY threads on the topic...and statements from actual designers...and youtube videos...and personal stories...etc., etc., <em>ad nauseam</em>, is a pretty good reason to say that, yes, there are some problems here that could be addressed.</p><p></p><p></p><p>See above. The former is "because I don't have a problem, nobody could possibly have a problem." The latter is "because I have a problem, there is a problem to be solved." The two claims are <em>not</em> comparable. One is a universal negation "derived" from a single personal experience. The other is not a universal claim in any part. Proving a mere existence claim only requires one example. It is, of course, useful to demonstrate that the problem is not unique to you, but useful and necessary are two distinct things.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I make it a firm policy to fight for playstyles I don't personally enjoy. It's why I have always--since before 5e launched--advocated for robust, well-featured "zero level" rules present in the core books, and which are treated fairly and respectfully, not cordoned off or treated like something dangerous or problematic. I have no use for such rules; they represent a playstyle I have zero or even negative interest in playing. But I am firmly committed to getting them included, because I know a <em>lot</em> of people would love to have them.</p><p></p><p>I also advocate for playstyles I <em>do</em> enjoy. But I refuse to be selfish about it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9207888, member: 6790260"] Is it really? It certainly isn't the same level of hasty generalization as the previous. All one needs to do is show that [I]some[/I] people have problems to show that, yes, something should probably be done to address them. One does not need to show that [I]absolutely everyone[/I] has problems in order to say that there is a problem going on that could be fixed, or at least mitigated. One must in fact actually show that nobody has a problem in order to say that there is no problem at all. And I think, given the many, many, MANY threads on the topic...and statements from actual designers...and youtube videos...and personal stories...etc., etc., [I]ad nauseam[/I], is a pretty good reason to say that, yes, there are some problems here that could be addressed. See above. The former is "because I don't have a problem, nobody could possibly have a problem." The latter is "because I have a problem, there is a problem to be solved." The two claims are [I]not[/I] comparable. One is a universal negation "derived" from a single personal experience. The other is not a universal claim in any part. Proving a mere existence claim only requires one example. It is, of course, useful to demonstrate that the problem is not unique to you, but useful and necessary are two distinct things. I make it a firm policy to fight for playstyles I don't personally enjoy. It's why I have always--since before 5e launched--advocated for robust, well-featured "zero level" rules present in the core books, and which are treated fairly and respectfully, not cordoned off or treated like something dangerous or problematic. I have no use for such rules; they represent a playstyle I have zero or even negative interest in playing. But I am firmly committed to getting them included, because I know a [I]lot[/I] of people would love to have them. I also advocate for playstyles I [I]do[/I] enjoy. But I refuse to be selfish about it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
No One Plays High Level?
Top
