Which are reflected in the rules. The rules say 1st level heroes aren't one cat scratch away from death. TRy imagining a world where that is the case and go from there. It's not their fault you're locked into imagining the game world the same way as it was 50 years and 5 editions ago.
While you did not call me out by name, you implied I was committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority in your previous post ("using simulation and v-tude as to gussy up preferences with an appearance of authority") - I did not express a general preference one way or the other in my gaming as to some mythical "correct way to play the game" and in fact said, "Goodberry in 5.5E is fine" followed by "If I want to focus on survival games (or dominion or horror or whatever), I'll use the right tool for the job and use a different game system."
In other words, I was advocating for using a system whose rules are designed around the style of game you prefer to play instead of complaining that the rules for systems that were clearly designed to accommodate a different style don't match the expectations of my preferred style of play.
In other words, when I want to play 5E-style games, I play 5E. When I want to play 1E-style games, I play 1E. Neither is "absolutely better" than the other; rather, they were designed to cater to different play styles and I should use the game whose rules best reflect the style in which I would like to play - which it seems like you agreed with your comment about "which are reflected in the rules."
I'm not "locked in", I prefer a lower level of heroism better represented through earlier editions of the game and other games based on such. The modern official game is not what I want, but I can't help being irritated that they refuse to treat it as the ver different game that it is, because pretending it's the same makes them more money.
I think Jefe's spirited defense of 5e/5.5e above suggests a "high power/heroism level" is the play style he prefers, and perhaps I am reading too much tone into it, but to my virtual ears the tone of his comments "try imagining a world where that is the case" and "you're locked into imagining the game world [as it was years ago]" sounds fairly condescending towards those that, like Micah, would prefer a lower powered style, and that Jefe believes "someone like Micah's preference is objectively wrong."
But now the back and forth starts to remind me of the Edition Wars of years past - "my edition does my favorite part better, therefore your edition overall sucks." This got us nowhere. Instead of telling other players "your tastes are wrong" (taste is subjective, they can't be "wrong") I think it is more useful to say, "different editions are built to different tastes" (which we all agree on) and if someone doesn't like the way a rule works in a particular edition, the correct response is probably "your tastes probably aren't aligned with the rules as written version of D&D about which we are talking; instead of saying the rule is somehow wrong, have you considered choosing a different set of rules/edition which may be more aligned with your tastes?"
Micah's take about being irritated that people "refuse to [different editions] as the ... different game[s they are], because pretending it's the same makes them more money" is an interesting one. I would agree that I think WotC is a little disingenuous in saying 2024 D&D is the same as 5E because there are several fundamental differences in design philosophy that inform the specific rules changes they made in such a way that the sum of the individual tweaks makes the final product significantly different than 5E circa 2014. If the premise is that WotC is trying to convince us 5.5E = 5E = 4E = 3E = 2E = 1E etc. I think it's fairly obvious that's not the case and I would disagree with that, but I don't think that's what Micah is trying to argue.
I think WotC should just call this edition 5.1E or 5.5E or whatever they want to do, admit it is a significant overhaul to the 5E chassis (as they did with 3 and 3.5E), and call it a day.
Meanwhile, the rest of us should stop arguing about "why this rule should be changed" when "it doesn't fit with my personal interpretation of the game" and perhaps we would find more fruitful threads (no pun intended here) if we said, "5.5E has rules to play things in 'this' manner, and I would
prefer they play in 'this other' manner and here are rules changes to support playing in 'this other manner' if you are interested" rather than "5.5E is WRONG and needs to be fixed."
Then perhaps those who are like-minded that playing in "this other manner" is interesting to them can help refine the rule and those who are not like-minded and prefer playing in "this rules-as-written" manner can simply ignore those threads and both groups can be happy.
But, yeah, this is the internet, so I know that's wishful thinking (obligatory XKCD post follows) as we all seem to have a hard time differentiating "my opinion is right" from "this is a fact" which leads to way more of the below that we should see on the internet.
I expect we should see arguments where
facts are in play ("the range on Magic Missile is
line of sight" vs. "that isn't strictly true, it's both
within 40 yards AND
within line of sight") but I've never understood the need for arguments where
opinions are in play ("I think Magic Missile could be more interesting if the range was just
line of sight") - note that it is probably inarguable that it would be more POWERFUL or more FLEXIBLE if the range was just "line of sight" but INTERESTING is a subjective term and thus the only factual thing I could say is "my opinion differs from yours" (with the optional and possibly helpful addition of "because X").
adnd2e.fandom.com
