D&D 5E Should martial characters be mundane or supernatural?

[Maxperson]

But if it "sucked the fantasy out of the game" it would have not have generated a $10B.

Not necessarily. There are people(a lot of them) who will pay to be whipped, cut and spit on. If D&D would have generated 100 billion but, only generated 10 billion do to "sucking the fantasy out of the game," the remaining 10% could be that minority of people for whom painful changes are appealing.

Again, I'm not claiming that the fantasy was sucked out of the game, but only that your logic isn't as strong as you think it is. I personally found more magical feeling in the fantasy of 1e-3e than I do with 5e. 5e still outdoes 1e and 2e for me, but only because I think it's a much better designed game than the first two editions. Not because of the fantasy feel of it.

 

[ECMO3]

That doesn't work, though. You can't actually show that lots of people buying IPhone 6s didn't keep them from being able to afford to buy into 5e and/or didn't play in their phone to the point where they didn't by 5e when they otherwise would have due to lack of time.

No but you can show that 5E exploded. Whether or not they could or couldn't or would or would not have, it did not hinder the explosion in popularity of the game. It did not stup it.

So when you said this, to me you were saying "the change to magic made 5e great".

I said "I THINK ..."

You claimed I made an assertion. I did not. I stated an unsupported opinion there and clearly worded it as such. IF I had not used the words "I think" then the meaning would be ambiguous and you could reasonably judge that I was stating this as a conclusive statement.

Then when you clarified your statement and said "the change to magic did not hinder 5e's rise to greatness" (EDIT: paraphrased), I questioned if you thought that a different approach couldn't have made the game greater. I didn't, from that statement, get the impression you were saying "the change to magic did not hinder 5e's rise to greatness to it's current level", which is a very different statement.

The definition of hinder is to cause an obstruction. It did not cause an obstruction to 5E achieving tremendous popularity. We can show this. I regret I did not make the wording more clear.

 

[Maxperson]

No but you can show that 5E exploded. Whether or not they could or couldn't or would or would not have, it did not hinder the explosion in popularity of the game. It did not stup it.

That's not how it works. If an explosion is kept to half of what it otherwise would be, the explosion was in fact hindered, even if it was not stopped.

The definition of hinder is to cause an obstruction. It did not cause an obstruction to 5E achieving tremendous popularity. We can show this. I regret I did not make the wording more clear.

You keep saying that as if it were fact when it's not. An obstruction can be overcome. You cannot show that no obstruction was there, or that 5e was not hindered. It may or may not have been. It's current popularity level may or may not be the maximum that was possible.

Look at it like this. If you are walking east for 24 hours and come to a high wall, that is an obstruction. It remains an obstruction even if you go get a wrecking ball and knock the wall down and keep going. It took you longer to get to where you are at and you did not go as far in 24 hours as you would have gone had the wall not been there. You remain hindered and were obstructed even though you overcame the obstruction and continued on.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No but you can show that 5E exploded. Whether or not they could or couldn't or would or would not have, it did not hinder the explosion in popularity of the game. It did not stup it.

But by that token, you cannot prove that the game wouldn't have done even better with a more fantastic approach to magic. That's the point.

We get it. You like wizard magic. That doesn't make science and logic stop working.

 

[ECMO3]

We get it. You like wizard magic. That doesn't make science and logic stop working.

My likes and dislikes are irrelevant on this subject and when I state opinions, I clearly frame them as such. I do not offer unsupported superlative statements like "it sucked the fantasy out of the game" framed as if it is a factual truism when there are not only facts to support such a claim, there is not even evidence that would lead you to deduce that was true for most players AND when the evedice we do have would actually imply the opposite without showing the opposite.

 

[Maxperson]

My likes and dislikes are irrelevant on this subject and when I state opinions, I clearly frame them as such. I do not offer unsupported superlative statements like "it sucked the fantasy out of the game" framed as if it is a factual truism when there are not only facts to support such a claim, there is not even evidence that would lead you to deduce that was true for most players AND when the evedice we do have would actually imply the opposite without showing the opposite.

I'm not exactly sure all of what that post is trying to say. It's a bit convoluted. That said, you have consistently been conflating "obstruction" and "hinderance" with "stopping cold" and that's not how those words work. A hinderance just slows something down and an obstruction can be overcome.

You have no evidence and can show no evidence that 5e was not obstructed or hindered, or that it was obstructed or hindered. The explosion we saw might have been twice the size or more had some hinderance and/or obstruction not been there. Or maybe what we see is as much as there could be because there was no hinderance or obstruction. We don't know and can't know and any claim one way or the other is baseless.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I do not offer unsupported superlative statements

That's all you've done for the past like five pages.

If it's your opinion that flattened magic helped the game, fine. But you've been going off continually insisting it's a fact with zero proof, even after walking it back to 'didn't hinder' and insisting the you can prove a negative.

 

[ECMO3]

But you've been going off continually insisting it's a fact with zero proof, even after walking it back to 'didn't hinder' and insisting the you can prove a negative.

I never once insisted it was a fact, not on this thread and not on any thread. Go back to my very first post on this and read it again.

I said I you can show it did not hinder it AFTER you posted "no" without any sort of evidence at all.