D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Snarf Zagyg]

So can we put this "5e is popular so it can't possibly be flawed" argument to rest?

Let's try this one more time. Seriously, this has had to be repeated approximately one million times, but again-

People aren't saying that 5e is popular, therefore it cannot possibly be flawed.

Instead, there are people ... many people, including me ... who keep reiterating that commercial sales matter. That there is not some Holy Grail of "Perfect Design" for everyone that you can measure objectively.

So when people keep "white room theorizing" what they want to happen with 5e, it would help to start by thinking about why 5e is popular. Actually thinking about it; not just dismissing it as "stupid people don't know what they want," and "that's just an appeal to popularity (wrong)" and "popularity isn't the same as quality" (true, but actual sales are an objective measure, whereas "quality" is subjective and dependent on a number of things, including what you want to use it for).

Even the idea of adding a bunch of options misses the point; as it is, despite the fact that 5e is "easy" (compared to, say, 3e), it's still relatively difficult to understand compared to other RPGs. Adding additional points of complexity might not be what is best for a game that is not designed for niche audiences, but designed to be broadly appealing.

None of the people here are actually considering design in terms of tradeoffs. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If a person were to design a game from scratch, without both the advantages and disadvantages of being "D&D," they could do all sorts of other things. But we aren't. Moreover, the constant complaints from a small number of people about the design of 5e, given that it is both the most popular edition of D&D ever, and the most popular RPG ever, seem to miss the point; first, you need to understand why it is successful before looking into what it should change. And there is a decided lack of reflection on why this version of D&D is successful. Just a lot of "Well, it might be the most successful ever, but it still sucks," assumptions.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Right, and some folks say an iceberg is straight ahead, but I dont see it.

Well, if you keep saying that the iceberg is straight ahead, eventually you will be on the Titanic and you can claim that "I told you so."

Doesn't make you any less annoying for the roughly One Billion other times you are in a friend's sailboat in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Let's try this one more time. Seriously, this has had to be repeated approximately one million times, but again-

People aren't saying that 5e is popular, therefore it cannot possibly be flawed.

Instead, there are people ... many people, including me ... who keep reiterating that commercial sales matter. That there is not some Holy Grail of "Perfect Design" for everyone that you can measure objectively.

So when people keep "white room theorizing" what they want to happen with 5e, it would help to start by thinking about why 5e is popular. Actually thinking about it; not just dismissing it as "stupid people don't know what they want," and "that's just an appeal to popularity (wrong)" and "popularity isn't the same as quality" (true, but actual sales are an objective measure, whereas "quality" is subjective and dependent on a number of things, including what you want to use it for).

Even the idea of adding a bunch of options misses the point; as it is, despite the fact that 5e is "easy" (compared to, say, 3e), it's still relatively difficult to understand compared to other RPGs. Adding additional points of complexity might not be what is best for a game that is not designed for niche audiences, but designed to be broadly appealing.

None of the people here are actually considering design in terms of tradeoffs. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If a person were to design a game from scratch, without both the advantages and disadvantages of being "D&D," they could do all sorts of other things. But we aren't. Moreover, the constant complaints from a small number of people about the design of 5e, given that it is both the most popular edition of D&D ever, and the most popular RPG ever, seem to miss the point; first, you need to understand why it is successful before looking into what it should change. And there is a decided lack of reflection on why this version of D&D is successful. Just a lot of "Well, it might be the most successful ever, but it still sucks," assumptions.

Not really. I literally don't care that it's popular. It has no effect on why I don't like WotC's take, or what I would prefer was done differently.

 

[Oofta]

Not really. I literally don't care that it's popular. It has no effect on why I don't like WotC's take, or what I would prefer was done differently.

You aren't the one claiming that there is absolutely no correlation between popularity of the game and any evidence of whether or not a lot of people enjoy playing the game.

No game can work for everyone. No game is perfect. A lot of people enjoy playing D&D which is reflected in sales and growth. All of those statements can be true.

 

[James Gasik]

A matter of perspective. I mean, are you making the case the ship is sinking? Id have to see some evidence to believe that.


Right, and some folks say an iceberg is straight ahead, but I dont see it.

Sinking? No, it's obviously not sinking. But ignoring a leak because it's not currently sinking the ship seems a bit odd to me. Of course, the problem is, getting people to admit that the leaks even exist, because again, they've accepted them, or have adapted to them, by either houseruling them away, or playing the game in a manner where they aren't an issue.

Hypothetical Poster: "Wizards aren't a problem in my game because enemies will laser focus on them, I never let them find scrolls or capture spellbooks, and antimagic fields are common in my game world."

Left unsaid is "Wizards might be a problem if I wasn't doing that, which not all DM's will be." Now maybe, because there's a Perception filter on the pages of the DMG, I've failed to notice the big red sidebar that says "hey, to keep the game running smooth, never give casters nothin'!", so I don't have a leg to stand on, lol. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that.

Now the 1e DMG certainly did, though there it was more "hey, to keep the game running smooth, never give player characters nothin'!".

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Not really. I literally don't care that it's popular. It has no effect on why I don't like WotC's take, or what I would prefer was done differently.

That's you! And this may be the least surprising comment ever, given the source......

That said, if you are proposing changes to it (and by proposing, I mean, um, demanding those changes more often than not), it helps to start by trying to understand why things are the way they are, and whether or not the way things are is a deliberate design decision (and why), and whether or not that deliberate decision is part and parcel of the desire to be broadly appealing.

That doesn't mean that every single decision is correct, or that the game cannot be improved. But to borrow a phrase, a lot of what people are claiming are bugs may, in fact, be features.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sinking? No, it's obviously not sinking. But ignoring a leak because it's not currently sinking the ship seems a bit odd to me. Of course, the problem is, getting people to admit that the leaks even exist, because again, they've accepted them, or have adapted to them, by either houseruling them away, or playing the game in a manner where they aren't an issue.

Hypothetical Poster: "Wizards aren't a problem in my game because enemies will laser focus on them, I never let them find scrolls or capture spellbooks, and antimagic fields are common in my game world."

Left unsaid is "Wizards might be a problem if I wasn't doing that, which not all DM's will be." Now maybe, because there's a Perception filter on the pages of the DMG, I've failed to notice the big red sidebar that says "hey, to keep the game running smooth, never give casters nothin'!", so I don't have a leg to stand on, lol. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that.

Now the 1e DMG certainly did, though there it was more "hey, to keep the game running smooth, never give player characters nothin'!".

To be fair, why should any table care about what other tables are doing?

 

[payn]

Sinking? No, it's obviously not sinking. But ignoring a leak because it's not currently sinking the ship seems a bit odd to me. Of course, the problem is, getting people to admit that the leaks even exist, because again, they've accepted them, or have adapted to them, by either houseruling them away, or playing the game in a manner where they aren't an issue.

Hypothetical Poster: "Wizards aren't a problem in my game because enemies will laser focus on them, I never let them find scrolls or capture spellbooks, and antimagic fields are common in my game world."

Left unsaid is "Wizards might be a problem if I wasn't doing that, which not all DM's will be." Now maybe, because there's a Perception filter on the pages of the DMG, I've failed to notice the big red sidebar that says "hey, to keep the game running smooth, never give casters nothin'!", so I don't have a leg to stand on, lol. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that.

Now the 1e DMG certainly did, though there it was more "hey, to keep the game running smooth, never give player characters nothin'!".

These leaks are a matter of perspective as even you attest here. It might be a tiny drip to me, but a gaping hole to you. Last time they fixed leaks for what they thought were the most folks, it didnt turn out so well. Im not saying they cant change the game and be successful, im saying its risky and dont blame them for avoiding it for the time being.

 

[Micah Sweet]

These leaks are a matter of perspective as even you attest here. It might be a tiny drip to me, but a gaping hole to you. Last time they fixed leaks for what they thought were the most folks, it didnt turn out so well. Im not saying they cant change the game and be successful, im saying its risky and dont blame them for avoiding it for the time being.

I don't think they were trying to fix leaks at all with 4e. I think they had decided what D&D should look like, and made it that way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To be fair, why should any table care about what other tables are doing?

Well, because few (I make the qualification because the ones I game with effectively were for a long time) gaming groups are hermetically sealed structures. Someone else's problem is not unlikely to be your own at some point. A problem that isn't one for a long time because nobody engaged with it only isn't one until your new players do. So do you want to just ignore it until you can't?