D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Minigiant]

You literally don't. I just showed you my build for my fighter, who has good social skills. The things I gave up, an extra +1 strength bonus, does not hinder me that much. It is called a tradeoff. When the wizard takes their spells for the day, there is a tradeoff happening. When the rogue decides to play an assassin and not a thief, there is a tradeoff. When the player decides to not take a feat and instead increase their ability score, that is a tradeoff. When a player chooses to be a gnome fighter instead of a half-orc fighter, that is a tradeoff. It is what the entire character creation ruleset is based on.
But what makes it worse, and the part that completely blinds people, is not understanding that a +3 in persuasion at first level is very close to having a +5.

That's level 1. D&D is a leveling a campaign game. A big aspect of D&D is the stuff you are good at go up in level.

Starting with a 14 Charisma is one thing. Continuing to boost it with your ASIs is another. The fighter class gets little from increasing INT, WIS, or CHA so their scores fall behind. A wizard gets little from increasing their STR so it falls behind.

So almost every (not multiclassing) PC morphs into the same Stereotypical PCs slowly.

In a better world, every ability score would matter to every class like DEX and CON.

In a better world, the default would be skills and ability scores not being tied and DMs knowing different ability combos for each skill.

5e is Great. But it is Basic and Stereotypical.

 

[Oofta]

Is that what I said? Or is that your sarcastic, unhelpful reinterpretation of what I said?

I asked the questions I asked because I know that Mr. Sweet is unhappy with the options and mechanical diversity present in first-party 5e content. And because I know these feelings personally (specifically, they applied to 3e) and have worked with others who felt the same way about other things (not TTRPG-related, but still game-related.)

Something being widely used does not necessarily have any relationship to it being well-liked, well-made, or well-suited. One must give more than just "this is used by a lot of people." Otherwise, we fall into the same trap Blizzard did with the design of several of their past expansions; they used player engagement (recorded data showing players doing various bits of content) as though it were players actually liking that content. This is a well-known fallacious reasoning method, called "surrogation": substituting the measure of a desirable good for the good itself, as though driving up the measure is identical to increasing that good.

Further, something can be widely-used because one specific aspect of it is well-liked, while other aspects are neutral or even disliked, because many things, including TTRPG classes, are bundles, not homogeneous, isotropic blocks. My claim has always been that Fighter is widely-used because it is conceptually well-liked, regardless of how well or poorly its mechanics perform. People will tolerate many, many kinds of Fighter. That doesn't mean there can't be any improvement.

Products that are not liked are widely used when people have no realistic alternative. Until streaming and the advent of wireless broadband I had to put up with whatever cable monopoly was offered where I live. But there are, and have been, many competitors to D&D over the years. Does that make D&D "good"? It's worked for the few dozen people I've played with over the course of the edition. We had fun playing the game so it was good enough for us. Are there also other good TTRPGs out there? Are there other games that are better, that given an opportunity would be just as successful if not more so? Of course, it's not a zero sum game. Is D&D good for every single individual? Heck no!

Saying a product isn't for everyone is far, far different from saying that the game is mediocre dreck and that people just don't know better or because there's an anti-competitive environment.

 

[Oofta]

This, and there are half a dozen social skills. And people keep trying to focus on no-proficiency 10 Cha characters trying to use persuasion when…that’s just a bad player choice, not a system issue. The 14 Cha Proficient character is gonna contribute just fine.


This

Wait are you saying extra proficiencies don’t count because backgrounds give proficiencies?

Or Rogue. Adding rogue to any Dex fighter build is very good.

My very first 5E PC was a fighter/rogue. Worked quite well, even if I didn't specialize in charisma based skills.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Like when I suggested a set of abilities that aren’t spells, like explicitly aren’t magical effects, but use a Spellcasting classes native spell slots to fuel them, and you specifically act like I’m taking a flamethrower to the whole concept of a spellless ranger?

Because you are. They're still bloody spells.

Declaring, "Oh, those things which have literally all of the mechanics of spells, including slots and components and known/prepared/etc. and..." is absolutely contrary to the concept of a spell-less ranger, or any other spell-less class. Saying, "Just use spells and close your eyes every time you have to look at a spell block!" is not a solution. It just isn't.

Nah. One need not wonder any such thing, any more than taking a couple levels of any other class.

Missing the point, but whatever. As you say, we'll probably be having this argument in 2025.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Products that are not liked are widely used when people have no realistic alternative.

Are you suggesting there is a realistic alternative to currently-supported WotC D&D?

Because I think the evidence is quite clear that that is not the case and hasn't been since 2014.

Prior to that, the one and only meaningful competitor D&D has faced in the TTRPG space was a company reselling D&D's prior products in repackaged form.

There is no realistic alternative. 95% of people play D&D. God as my witness, I wish that weren't true. I wish I could get 13A games or SR5e games or anything else in this bloody community. It may as well not exist. I tried for over a year to find an online game. Partially during pandemic lockdown! I came up empty.

 

[Oofta]

Are you suggesting there is a realistic alternative to currently-supported WotC D&D?

Because I think the evidence is quite clear that that is not the case and hasn't been since 2014.

There are hundreds of other games out there. WOTC does not have and cannot enforce a monopoly. That doesn't make them the best there is, it just means that it works as a source of entertainment that works well enough for a lot of people. People have more distractions, more options for entertainment than ever before. D&D isn't just competing against other TTRPGs in an open market they're competing against games like Gloomhaven, more traditional board games, streaming entertainment, tik tok or whatever the current craze is, on and on. Yet it's still seeing double digit growth for a decade, that doesn't happen with a bad product when there is an open competitive environment.

I guarantee there is probably a better game for any given individual. But for broad mass market appeal? If D&D were not competent it wouldn't be where it is today. You may not like the game, no game can be for everyone. But it works for millions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Prior to that, the one and only meaningful competitor D&D has faced in the TTRPG space was a company reselling D&D's prior products in repackaged form.

Point of information - in the 90s White Wolf were a meaningful challenger to the version of D&D that almost actually killed the game. It was, however, basically dead long before 2014

There is no realistic alternative. 95% of people play D&D. God as my witness, I wish that weren't true. I wish I could get 13A games or SR5e games or anything else in this bloody community. It may as well not exist. I tried for over a year to find an online game. Partially during pandemic lockdown! I came up empty.

I find it hard to find a game - but not hard to run one.

 

[Zardnaar]

Are you suggesting there is a realistic alternative to currently-supported WotC D&D?

Because I think the evidence is quite clear that that is not the case and hasn't been since 2014.

Prior to that, the one and only meaningful competitor D&D has faced in the TTRPG space was a company reselling D&D's prior products in repackaged form.

There is no realistic alternative. 95% of people play D&D. God as my witness, I wish that weren't true. I wish I could get 13A games or SR5e games or anything else in this bloody community. It may as well not exist. I tried for over a year to find an online game. Partially during pandemic lockdown! I came up empty.

RPGs don't really exist imho. There's a 5 minute wonder that lasts a few years and D&D.

Think it's just time and access to players. I can convince my players to try Star Wars and older editions that's about it and they're rare.

I've a few more on the shelf. Expensive book ends.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Are you suggesting there is a realistic alternative to currently-supported WotC D&D?

Because I think the evidence is quite clear that that is not the case and hasn't been since 2014.

Prior to that, the one and only meaningful competitor D&D has faced in the TTRPG space was a company reselling D&D's prior products in repackaged form.

There is no realistic alternative. 95% of people play D&D. God as my witness, I wish that weren't true. I wish I could get 13A games or SR5e games or anything else in this bloody community. It may as well not exist. I tried for over a year to find an online game. Partially during pandemic lockdown! I came up empty.

So seems like most prefer D&D 5e then, which to me implies it is a decent product. Personally I have not experienced issues getting people to try different games though, I'm playing Blades in the Dark today.

 

[Zardnaar]

There are hundreds of other games out there. WOTC does not have and cannot enforce a monopoly. That doesn't make them the best there is, it just means that it works as a source of entertainment that works well enough for a lot of people. People have more distractions, more options for entertainment than ever before. D&D isn't just competing against other TTRPGs in an open market they're competing against games like Gloomhaven, more traditional board games, streaming entertainment, tik tok or whatever the current craze is, on and on. Yet it's still seeing double digit growth for a decade, that doesn't happen with a bad product when there is an open competitive environment.

I guarantee there is probably a better game for any given individual. But for broad mass market appeal? If D&D were not competent it wouldn't be where it is today. You may not like the game, no game can be for everyone. But it works for millions.

Good luck getting players for any of those games.

If you want to actually play vs GM good luck X10.

Slight exaggeration.