D&D 5E On rulings, rules, and Twitter, or: How Sage Advice Changed

[Oofta]

There's no logic there, just assertion. You never say why it's flexible, or what flexible means, to you. That's the ask.

So, to you, flexibility is setting options? The difference between playing Eberron and Barovia? That's at least an answer, so thanks. However, if flexible is just setting, how is 5e more flexible than any other edition of D&D? The can ALL do this.

Here's where we're going to disagree. The stylistic change is very slight, given the range of actual possibility across all RPGs. Again, we've had some long arguments and intractable differences about how the game works, but your players would be just fine at my table and my players at yours. This is pretty much true of D&D in general. It's only if you're making extensive changes to the rules, or ignoring them, that differences occur, but that's not a feature of 5e, it's a feature of people.

No, I don't say there's no flexibility, I'm saying it's not actually all that flexible.

Nothing you've provided wasn't possible in older editions, though. I'm not seeing the specialness. Critical Role started with Pathfinder, which is essentially 3.x.

Yup, if you're making up the rules, there's not much system there to flex. This is, again, not a feature of the system, but a feature of people.

You do you. I've given my opinion, which is all it is at the end of the day. You don't get to tell me my opinion is wrong.

 

[Lanefan]

You don't get to tell me my opinion is wrong.

I don't?

Then what the hell is this internet thing supposed to be used for?

 

[Ovinomancer]

You do you. I've given my opinion, which is all it is at the end of the day. You don't get to tell me my opinion is wrong.

There are plenty of cases where you can be told your opinion is wrong. It's not an impenetrable shield. If you have the opinion that the Earth is flat, for instance, I can very much say you are wrong. But, I'm not saying that your opinion is wrong, I'm saying you haven't provided any support for your opinion. Everything you've pointed out was possible in previous editions of D&D.

 

[Oofta]

There are plenty of cases where you can be told your opinion is wrong. It's not an impenetrable shield. If you have the opinion that the Earth is flat, for instance, I can very much say you are wrong. But, I'm not saying that your opinion is wrong, I'm saying you haven't provided any support for your opinion. Everything you've pointed out was possible in previous editions of D&D.

The shape of the earth is objective, opinion is subjective. I've said what I think, I don't care whether you think I've "justified" anything or not. I'm also not getting into edition wars because that's not productive.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't?

Then what the hell is this internet thing supposed to be used for?

Pictures of cats.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The shape of the earth is objective, opinion is subjective. I've said what I think, I don't care whether you think I've "justified" anything or not. I'm also not getting into edition wars because that's not productive.

yeesh. I disagree with a lot of the stuff you say about other editions of DnD, but yikes. What's the line where disrespect becomes against the rules? Bc i feel like that poster has, in aggregate of their replies to you, probably passed it.

 

[Oofta]

Pictures of cats.

 

[Oofta]

yeesh. I disagree with a lot of the stuff you say about other editions of DnD, but yikes. What's the line where disrespect becomes against the rules? Bc i feel like that poster has, in aggregate of their replies to you, probably passed it.

I have no problem with people disagreeing, I'm sure if I look at posts I made a few months ago I may well wonder what I was on that day (hint: probably lack of sleep and/or stress). But yeah, after a point just agree to disagree.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The shape of the earth is objective, opinion is subjective. I've said what I think, I don't care whether you think I've "justified" anything or not. I'm also not getting into edition wars because that's not productive.

Ah, so flexibility is entirely subjective, in your book. If this is the case, why argue back against any claims that it's not very flexible? If your opinion that it is subjectively flexible is outside of criticism, then so is that other case, but yet you have engaged that claim with a counter. Or, are you not countering the argument that 5e is not very flexible?

Personally, I think flexibility is something that can be objectively defined and discussed.

 

[Oofta]

Ah, so flexibility is entirely subjective, in your book. If this is the case, why argue back against any claims that it's not very flexible? If your opinion that it is subjectively flexible is outside of criticism, then so is that other case, but yet you have engaged that claim with a counter. Or, are you not countering the argument that 5e is not very flexible?

Personally, I think flexibility is something that can be objectively defined and discussed.

Dude, I'm done. Have a good one.