D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[EzekielRaiden]

No offense been hearing similar remarks since the 90s and Vampire.

D&D endures.

I'm curious why you think I should take offense to that. I'm further curious why you think I'm saying D&D is bad, because I'm not.

I'm saying it has faults, and that simply declaring "D&D is popular!" or "Fighters are popular!" does not win the argument. It does not, at all, show that every single specific component and characteristic of D&D (or Fighters) is necessarily deeply beloved and perfect, incapable of improvement or devleopment of any kind.

But that--that exact argument--is what people keep using when they say, "Well, it's popular, so it doesn't need to change."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

1. I did not respond to you, did I?

2. I did not quote you, did I?

3. Since you seem very concerned about people quoting the things that you say, why don't you show me exactly where I made the argument that you just attributed to me? Given that I have repeatedly written on design, in multiple place, it should be easy.

I'll wait.

D&D is too popular, therefore it must be changed. Not sure that it survives close examination.

Done. Next?

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm curious why you think I should take offense to that. I'm further curious why you think I'm saying D&D is bad, because I'm not.

I'm saying it has faults, and that simply declaring "D&D is popular!" or "Fighters are popular!" does not win the argument. It does not, at all, show that every single specific component and characteristic of D&D (or Fighters) is necessarily deeply beloved and perfect, incapable of improvement or devleopment of any kind.

But that--that exact argument--is what people keep using when they say, "Well, it's popular, so it doesn't need to change."

It's doing sonething right. Mostly just genre I think.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Done. Next?

Let's try this again-

You wrote that I said,

"Well, it's popular, so it doesn't need to change."

You then say that this is the equivalent of the following, which I attributed to other people-

"D&D is too popular, therefore it must be changed."



....wow. No words. No notes. As I like to remark, res ipsa.

 

[payn]

Because everyone gets skill proficiencies.
Everyone gets backgrounds
Everyone gets class skills.

A Fighter's History or Deception is the same proficiency as a Wizard's History or a Sorcerer's Deception but lower modifier.
A Fighter's History or Deception might be less proficiency a Rogue's History or a Bard's Deception.

Folks would probably hate my idea, but I'd gate lock a few backgrounds behind some classes. Like a military academy requires fighter, and be sure not to extend that limited background to any martial.

1. There aren't enough skills for this system. Only 18.
2. Skills aren't anyway evenly distributed among Ability scores. Skills are tied to score by default. Strength has one skill that is purely Exploration. Constitution has no skills.
3. PCs get too many skills for the low amount of skills. Overlap is too easy.
4. 5e hands out skills like candy.

Its true, 5E skill system just generally sucks. (I dont know why this is bold, or why I cant change it, but I think the forum software wants it emphasized!)

Only a "Gentlemen's Agreement" keeps the party having a broad skill array. This makes nonstereotypical or nontraditional PCs weaker or redundant.

5e was designed, accidentally or purposely, to support and incentivize traditional stereotypical PCs with skill choice (and almost every other choice).

1. Acolyte Cleric
2. Criminal Rogue
3. Soldier Fighter
4. Sage Wizard

etc etc

All part of the simplification of 5E design. I don't mind it as a base, but was really hoping for that modularity that never showed up.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Let's try this again-

You wrote that I said,

"Well, it's popular, so it doesn't need to change."

You then say that this is the equivalent of this, which I attributed to other people-

"D&D is too popular, therefore it must be changed."



....wow. No words. No notes.

You were using that as a strawman argument to reject anyone's claim that there's any possible flaws with D&D, because D&D is popular, and popular things obviously never warrant any change whatsoever.

I was not such a fool to think you were saying those things for yourself. Please give me a little credit here.

 

[Minigiant]

I truly want people to get what they want, but this always seems like such a bizarre way to look at it; D&D is too popular, therefore it must be changed. Not sure that it survives close examination. IMO, YMMV, etc.

D&D doesn't have to be changed.

D&D, because it is the gateway and most popular version of RPGs, should broaden its suppor of other archetypes.

Again 5th edition has added ONE new class.

I don't think any class/faction/clan based RPG has ever only added ONE new class in 10 years of an edition with continuous support.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You were using that as a strawman argument to reject anyone's claim that there's any possible flaws with D&D, because D&D is popular, and popular things obviously never warrant any change whatsoever.

I was not such a fool to think you were saying those things for yourself. Please give me a little credit here.

You attributed a statement to me.

I asked you for that statement, and that's what you gave me. With condescension. Now, the backtracking.

I am giving you exactly the credit you deserve.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Have you tried running a 13A or SR5 game online yourself? For that matter,, start a 4e game; I know you're a 4e guy. Get people interested in what you like and you'll have more players wanting to play those games. I hate that everyone plays WotC 5e too, but a lot of those folks just don't know any better. We have to show them. Demanding WotC change their game to accommodate you is, IMO, a fool's errand and a disservice to everyone who has different opinions about D&D than you do.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

D&D doesn't have to be changed.

D&D, because it is the gateway and most popular version of RPGs, should broaden its suppor of other archetypes.

Again 5th edition has added ONE new class.

I don't think any class/faction/clan based RPG has ever only added ONE new class in 10 years of an edition with continuous support.

Well, if you're right, it will likely suffer the fate of 2e. A "revision" that didn't revise enough, and gradually ran into problems.

But we'll see, right? Some people who have played 5e since the beginning are getting bored with it, but then again, there are also new players coming in. In addition, a lot of the "bored" players also branch out into 3PP (such as Level Up) or homebrew.*

Anyway, you will probably accomplish 10,000 times more good by providing your feedback directly to WoTC than you do by commenting here.


*And, of course, some go on to play completely different games, which is healthy to the hobby overall.