D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Minigiant]

man I wish you’d just actually say the thing you’re alluding to instead of constantly alluding to things.

Anyway, the point is that extra skill proficiencies is a non-combat class feature. Acting like it isn’t just because backgrounds exist is mind boggling weird to me.

I say it several times in bold.

After a certain amount of times, I grow tired of repeating myself.

But I'll repeat myself again.

If you only have 18 skills and you give every PC 4 skills there's a high chance there will be a redundancy. If you give some classes like rogue additional skills and some races like elf additional skills, this increases the chance of redundancy even more.

Basically there aren't enough skills in 5th edition for the amount of skills each character gets automatically.​

This is doubly problematic if the skill spread is not even among ability scores.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

This is one of those things that makes it easy to understand the nostalgic, "ah, it was a simpler time..." impulse.

Back in the day, you could pretty easily ignore what other people might be doing somewhere else, as far as D&D was concerned. But, really, the world was already getting smaller, even back then. Prior generations were freaking out about live TV broadcasts from all over the world, just as they had about pictures and film coming out of Vietnam during the war. Things were already very complicated.

But it's easy to think, well, you only read Out on a Limb in the pages of Dragon 1/mo, and maybe went to a convention or few a year, was there even a general opinion, and what did it matter if there, was? And wouldn't it be nice if we all lived in such disconnected, rose-colored naivete now?

No, it really wouldn't be nice. Whatever negatives come from a more connected community - whatever vitriol, echo chambers, or appearances of forced conformity may arise - sharing ideas is generally better than willfully staying isolated from them. Of course, the larger the community, the louder the voices shouting down ideas, too....
...there're just no unalloyed goods, then, or now.

 

[payn]

Money is not quality. You're not usually the one state that fallacy.

I'm not arguing its better quality, I'm arguing its a better product.

 

[payn]

So a better product that was annihilated by marketing and the bad habits the corporation itself fostered? Yeah, pretty apt comparison.

Its true. Taste tests showed folks preferred new coke. Though, folks banded together and got it tossed on nostalgia. One of the leaders of the movement had never even drank coke, which is super weird. Though, yes it is an apt comparison.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So ok, let's say you're right, and the reason 5e is popular is because it is the way that it is. Maybe what we should be discussing then is why:

Let me start by saying that a bunch of what you are writing as your discussion questions are necessarily tilted to get the results that you want. But sure, I will try and in good faith provide you answers to your questions; note that these are my responses, and these are possible answers, but I do not claim that these are necessarily the answers.

-More base classes would be bad for the game.

Because D&D is for the people. That means it needs to be easily accessible and grokable. As it stands, there are 12 (13 if you count the artificer) full classes in 5e, and innumberable subclasses.

That's already a lot in the base game. Additional classes are always available via 3PP and homebrew. In addition, should the need arise, they can always make a specific new class for a setting/adventure/expansion.

But too much crunch kills editions. They want to keep the core simple.

-More love given to non-magical (sub) classes would be bad for the game.

I have no idea what "love," means. As it stands, the most popular two classes are the Fighter and Rogue - both of them non-magical. As should be obvious, additional "love" (whatever that means) would likely start to throw things out of balance.

-Making sure that players can't optimize themselves out of being able to participate meaningfully in a social encounter would be bad for the game (I know this is hotly contested, but it's my experience that if you want something from an NPC, there's really only three ways to succeed- skill check, magic, and convince the DM, and that last one, of course, carries the most weight).

As you note, this would be hotly contested. Why introduce something that is both hotly contested and also varies so much from table-to-table into the game? In other words, why be intentionally divisive in an area that very few people complain about?

-Allowing all classes to be able to perform incredible feats, not just magic users would be bad for the game.

This is just the same argument as the "love" argument, repackaged.

-Coming out and saying "yes, D&D worlds aren't real worlds, the laws of physics aren't our laws of physics, the humans are similar to but not exactly Earth humans, and by level X, it's assumed everyone can perform feats far beyond those of normal people even in their world" would be bad for the game (this one I know is even more fiercely contested, but most arguments against it come down to "that's not my preference", not whether or not it would be good for D&D).

This is just the same argument as the "love" argument, repackaged.

Without putting too fine a point on it, a lot of these points are basically, "Why not 5e, but 4e?" Sure. There are times I say, "Why not 5e, but 1e?" And other say, "Why not 5e, but where the heck are real psionics?"

There are small constituencies for various changes. But the point is- they are small constituencies. They are not looking backwards, but looking forward, and building upon a base that has largely developed during 5e.

Or, more simply- the primary market isn't you. And it isn't me. It's the people that joined up in the last ten years, and the people that will join in the next decade. It's okay that we aren't the primary market, because that means the game is thriving.

 

[Oofta]

So ok, let's say you're right, and the reason 5e is popular is because it is the way that it is. Maybe what we should be discussing then is why:

-More base classes would be bad for the game.

They did UA articles for new classes and received negative feedback. So yes, a lot of people that play the game believe it would be bad for the game.

-More love given to non-magical (sub) classes would be bad for the game.

If by "more love" you mean "significant changes", then I'd say it's a risk not worth taking. Fighters are the most popular class, followed by rogues. A lot of people like playing them because of the simplicity.

-Making sure that players can't optimize themselves out of being able to participate meaningfully in a social encounter would be bad for the game (I know this is hotly contested, but it's my experience that if you want something from an NPC, there's really only three ways to succeed- skill check, magic, and convince the DM, and that last one, of course, carries the most weight).

Then it's a good thing that all classes can be decent at social encounters if that's what a player wants. A lot of people don't care and, although I know nobody reads it, the DMG encourages the DM to ensure that everyone participates on a regular basis and gives examples of how to do it.

-Allowing all classes to be able to perform incredible feats, not just magic users would be bad for the game.

That would change the nature of the game. See my comment above, fighters and rogues are the most popular classes without it.

-Coming out and saying "yes, D&D worlds aren't real worlds, the laws of physics aren't our laws of physics, the humans are similar to but not exactly Earth humans, and by level X, it's assumed everyone can perform feats far beyond those of normal people even in their world" would be bad for the game (this one I know is even more fiercely contested, but most arguments against it come down to "that's not my preference", not whether or not it would be good for D&D).

We have people saying they're already supernaturally capable because they can fight dragons and win. But there's a big gap between a show like The Witcher where Geralt fights wyverns and anime where someone smacks the ground with a hammer and it causes a fissure to open. I accept that all PCs in D&D are action movie heroes, I don't want anime caricatures. Based on feedback from surveys, neither do most people.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Let me start by saying that a bunch of what you are writing as your discussion questions are necessarily tilted to get the results that you want. But sure, I will try and in good faith provide you answers to your questions; note that these are my responses, and these are possible answers, but I do not claim that these are necessarily the answers.



Because D&D is for the people. That means it needs to be easily accessible and grokable. As it stands, there are 12 (13 if you count the artificer) full classes in 5e, and innumberable subclasses.

That's already a lot in the base game. Additional classes are always available via 3PP and homebrew. In addition, should the need arise, they can always make a specific new class for a setting/adventure/expansion.

But too much crunch kills editions. They want to keep the core simple.



I have no idea what "love," means. As it stands, the most popular two classes are the Fighter and Rogue - both of them non-magical. As should be obvious, additional "love" (whatever that means) would likely start to throw things out of balance.



As you note, this would be hotly contested. Why introduce something that is both hotly contested and also varies so much from table-to-table into the game? In other words, why be intentionally divisive in an area that very few people complain about?



This is just the same argument as the "love" argument, repackaged.



This is just the same argument as the "love" argument, repackaged.

Without putting too fine a point on it, a lot of these points are basically, "Why not 5e, but 4e?" Sure. There are times I say, "Why not 5e, but 1e?" And other say, "Why not 5e, but where the heck are real psionics?"

There are small constituencies for various changes. But the point is- they are small constituencies. They are not looking backwards, but looking forward, and building upon a base that has largely developed during 5e.

Or, more simply- the primary market isn't you. And it isn't me. It's the people that joined up in the last ten years, and the people that will join in the next decade. It's okay that we aren't the primary market, because that means the game is thriving.

If the game is thriving without us, why should we care about it?

 

[Scribe]

I say it several times in bold.

After a certain amount of times, I grow tired of repeating myself.

But I'll repeat myself again.

If you only have 18 skills and you give every PC 4 skills there's a high chance there will be a redundancy. If you give some classes like rogue additional skills and some races like elf additional skills, this increases the chance of redundancy even more.

Basically there aren't enough skills in 5th edition for the amount of skills each character gets automatically.​

This is doubly problematic if the skill spread is not even among ability scores.

Why is this a problem at all? Because someone is going to not be the best at a given skill, because a Librarian/Skill Monkey class has it, and better stats for those skills?

So what?

-More love given to non-magical (sub) classes would be bad for the game.

Define 'love'? Theres a very easy solution that other editions have included. Magic Items.

-More base classes would be bad for the game.

Its been argued already, that part of 5e success is down to limiting the increase in crunch/options.

-Making sure that players can't optimize themselves out of being able to participate meaningfully in a social encounter would be bad for the game (I know this is hotly contested, but it's my experience that if you want something from an NPC, there's really only three ways to succeed- skill check, magic, and convince the DM, and that last one, of course, carries the most weight).

Why is this a problem? If I dont want to participate in Social, why should I have to? I have a Party for a reason.

-Allowing all classes to be able to perform incredible feats, not just magic users would be bad for the game.

Why? I want my character to be grounded, and to play an everyman who has some magic items, and magical friends.

-Coming out and saying "yes, D&D worlds aren't real worlds, the laws of physics aren't our laws of physics, the humans are similar to but not exactly Earth humans, and by level X, it's assumed everyone can perform feats far beyond those of normal people even in their world" would be bad for the game (this one I know is even more fiercely contested, but most arguments against it come down to "that's not my preference", not whether or not it would be good for D&D).

Because people want to be able to transfer enough of their actual experience, to suspend disbelief. Yes, we understand Giants and Dragons are magical, fantastical beings. We also dont think about it too much because most people will have zero context of the actual physics or dimensions of such beings.

Meanwhile, everyone knows that a dude on the corner doesnt have a 30 foot vertical jump and a 40 lb CHILD is not lifting a sledge hammer and swinging it around with any kind of aptitude.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm pretty sure they were at least addressing problems part of the fan base had. You can distinctly question whether they overestimated how big that part was, but that's a different issue.

The specific issues WotC addressed with 4e were pretty clear, and pretty commonly held by the visible community at the time. Combat was too static, due to the interactions of rules like Full Attack. Fighters were completely unsuited to their supposed role(s). Classes were wildly out of balance, DMing was a burdensome task, etc...
The mistake WotC made was actually fixing those problems. They didn't consider, for instance, that maybe, some of the fans going on about how badly designed the game they loved was, were fans reveling in feeling smarter than the designers, not fans complaining that they wanted something better.
(I mean, I kid, but do you never feel a little thrill when you spot something 'wrong'....?)

 

[James Gasik]

In order for there to identify a "leak" there would have to be evidence of said hypothetical leak. With fighters for example evidence could be that they spiked in popularity early on but are rarely played now. Except there is no such evidence. Fighters have always been and continue to be the single most popular class.

So just because you personally have an issue with fighters there is no reason to believe there is a "leak" or any need to make drastic changes. Honestly, I wouldn't know anyone has an issue with fighters if it weren't for forums, if you don't like the class there are plenty of other options.

Of course, much like the ongoing conversation gets the retort "just because they're popular doesn't mean people enjoy playing them" or the "they aren't perfect". The former is just nonsensical to me because there are plenty of other class options people could freely play, the latter is true because there is no such thing as perfection.

I can only speak for myself, but my issue with Fighters starts somewhere around level 6-7 or so. Up until that that point, you're good at combat, exactly what the class is supposed to be, you're decently tough, and with enough short rests, you can keep adventuring all day.

It's about this point, however, when you start realizing some of the other classes are really starting to blossom, gaining new and powerful abilities and neat and interesting things to do, and you're still mostly "I swing sword/shoot bow good". If you look ahead at what you have to look forward to, it's a desolate wasteland. Maybe you have a good level 7 subclass feature. Maybe it's just a little more of what you already have. Maybe it's not even all that great!

Then at level 9 you get the super amazing ability to reroll a failed save that you very likely had a terrible chance to succeed at anyways, with being built to have four saves that scale terribly (if at all) and even if you do take Resilient, that's still a lot of gaping holes in your defenses. At level 11 you get another attack per round, and that's great, but again, it's just more of what you were doing before. Now that might be ok for some players, and if so, great.

But I've seen people (yeah, not just me) struggle with it. I solved the problem by multiclassing, but just like taking Resilient or getting a neat magic item, that's not something you can count on- not only is it optional, and so not always available, but you often hear people online saying they think multiclassing is somehow inherently busted, lol, and if you say "yeah, so I'm multiclassed", the reaction is usually "oh, what broken combo are you trying to pull of?" when the answer is, "I became a Rogue because it's fun for me!".

Now I get it. A lot of people think that what I perceive as problems for the Fighter are features. We got to have a class that's exactly what it says on the tin, doesn't require deep thought (not to say that Fighter players are not intelligent, but if you want to turn your brain off a little, it doesn't necessarily affect your ability to be a Fighter), etc..

Which I suppose would be ok if 1) the class had a disclaimer saying this is what it's purpose is. And 2) if there weren't other classes that can do pretty much all of what the Fighter does and more.