D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Crimson Longinus]

There are plenty of commercial products that generate a ton of buzz but generates a amount of dollars that doesn't match.

Then they aren't very popular. Lack of popularity might be affected other things than quality of the product, such as marketing etc. but still doesn't change the fact that sales equals popularity.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm glad you did, I wish I'd had you around back then, because the first time I used a Bulette, with it's three different AC's (and, at the time, I had no idea if 1e even had a rule for called shots- actually I still don't, but I know 2e does) turned into a horrendous mess, lol.

It didn't, tho they were common, and generally involved a penalty to hit, which, when the only difference is the AC (???) ... the Bulette write-up was prettymuch nonsense, that way. Other monsters had different ACs for different bits, but separate hp, too, so it sorta made sense. It's understandable, tho, the MM was written before the PH and the DMG! It had a lot of weird little issues that way, like spell called out that didn't exist in the PH (though they clearly were just slightly different names for spells that did), or saving throws called out vs "magic" (is that Spells? Rod/staff/wand?), etc...

 

[Micah Sweet]

I really doubt that. WotC is in the money making business. If they were making $100 million a year a few fans sniping at each other online would be irrelevant. The online community is still toxic. And WotC is still making money and they don’t seem to care about the toxicity. At all.

As long as it doesn't lead to people spending less money on their stuff, of course, or an issue that makes WotC look bad catches too much interest (like the OGL debacle).

 

[billd91]

In 2e? All of them. Limiting the shield was an optional rule.

Nope. It's right in the description of shields on PH 75 and 76. Not called out as optional at all.

Sure, in 1e there were a ton of weird stuff like that, but 2e cleaned most of that up. Like THAC0 (which was not a 1e thing, even if it showed up at the back of the DMG for monsters).

I'd say most of that weird stuff continued on in 2e. It's one of the reasons the game was so compatible with its predecessors.

Look, I'm not advocating we bring THAC0 back. That ship has sailed, and I don't think it should come back. I'm only arguing that it wasn't as difficult or bad as some people are making it sound, and it's entirely reasonable that some people prefer it for the reasons given.

It was an improvement over the table, but if someone says it gave them a lot of trouble (particularly negative AC), they're absolutely telling you the truth. You don't get to brush that off because you didn't experience it.

 

[James Gasik]

I am dubious this actually happened. It's like you took every hyperbolic argument against AD&D and expect us to believe literally every single player in your group was legit making those hyperbolic arguments, and making them in a specific order that just so happens to cover all of those arguments in the most convenient way. Presumably if your players were not familiar with AD&D, they wouldn't make half of those statements unprompted, because they require a knowledge of how the system worked. And others just don't make sense from an organic sense, like your first example.


Like what? Do you have an example of where it's confusing is a monster wore armor or not? It as pretty clearly spelled out. Take the orc for example. It told you what the natural AC is in parentheses. That's how it was handled, as described in the MM.

ARMOR CLASS is the general protection worn by humans and humanoids, protection due to physical structure or magical nature, or difficulty in hitting due to speed, reflexes, etc. Humans and humanoids of roughly man-size that wear armor will have an unarmored rating in parentheses.

View attachment 296154

First, thanks for calling me a dirty fibber. Appreciated!

Second, if you're saying that weapon vs. armor types is not intended to be used against monsters at all, I never considered that, as that seems like an abject waste of a subsystem if large numbers of foes ignore it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Please don't mistake me, I completely loved mythos priests! They were among my favorite things to play! But looking back, I can totally see how there was a serious problem with their implementation, when you can play a priest out of Legends and Lore and be handed abilities of other classes like warrior Thac0 or exceptional strength, or the ability to cast Wizard spells, let along unique abilities like "oh hey, it says here I get -1 to AC per level until level 10!" (Hermes, I believe) or "huh, so at level 11 I just...go to level 12?" (Sif).

All of that stuff makes sense for verisimilitude, and whether or not any option was available was in the hands of the DM anyway. And this before the, DMs are bad and need to be controlled" movement really got a head of steam.

 

[James Gasik]

All of that stuff makes sense for verisimilitude, and whether or not any option was available was in the hands of the DM anyway. And this before the, DMs are bad and need to be controlled" movement really got a head of steam.

Yes, I recall, it was during the "Players are bad and need to be controlled" era.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Nope. It's right in the description of shields on PH 75 and 76. Not called out as optional at all.

It was an improvement over the table, but if someone says it gave them a lot of trouble (particularly negative AC), they're absolutely telling you the truth. You don't get to brush that off because you didn't experience it.

That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm saying this:

First, thanks for calling me a dirty fibber. Appreciated!

I didn't say you were lying. I'm saying I find it dubious for that to have transpired as you described for the reasons I gave.

Second, if you're saying that weapon vs. armor types is not intended to be used against monsters at all,..

I'm not saying that either. I asked for an example, because the problem you gave is directly addressed in the MM, specifically the part I pasted for you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, I recall, it was during the "Players are bad and need to be controlled" era.

As a player, I agree with this. We're the worst.

 

[Minigiant]

Then they aren't very popular. Lack of popularity might be affected other things than quality of the product, such as marketing etc. but still doesn't change the fact that sales equals popularity.

The rap game says different.

Anyways that's besides the point. The point is that the designers were willing to add all kinds of different fantasies to 5th edition just not any of the fantasies developed in 4th edition.

But the Purple Dragon Knight?