Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8644171" data-attributes="member: 16814">Weird non sequitur.&nbsp; [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER] was speaking to the fact that the Inspiration system was bad design in part because it's so easily ignorable.&nbsp; You chose to, without any support, ask if it might have been intended design.&nbsp; I addressed that statement.&nbsp; Where is quality and how quality defined part of this chain?You directly suggested that the design intent was to be easily ignorable.&nbsp; I think it's exceptionally relevant.&nbsp; Ok.&nbsp; So, their intent in producing this books is that it is ignorable?&nbsp; This is a design goal?You're confusing what users may choose to do on their own volition for the intent of design.&nbsp; I'm 100% certain that WotC doesn't want you to ignore their rules -- they have a monetary interest in you 1) finding them interesting enough to buy them and 2) finding them useful enough to recommend and encourage more sales.&nbsp; Are you arguing that WotC is in the business of making books that they intend you to ignore?Your argument is that the PHB for 5e intentionally includes beginner rules at significant page space and doesn't call them out as such?&nbsp; That they predicated the DMG social encounter rules on these same concepts and that's beginner text as well?&nbsp; That you're supposed to abandon inspiration as you &quot;get gud&quot; and playing D&amp;D?&nbsp; And that all of this is supposed to be obvious to veteran players, at least?I find this chain of inference to be very weak.&nbsp; It requires some pretty strong assumptions, especially when we can see that they actually do produce beginner on-ramping products that introduce rules in a stepped fashion.&nbsp; Further, as a veteran player, I'd absolutely LOVE for BIFTs to matter outside of the Inspiration mechanic, or just for NPCs within the social encounter mechanics.Sure, but you seem to be trying to persuade someone, yes?&nbsp; Otherwise, why post.&nbsp; Can I then be assumed to also be trying to persuade this other person(s), as I find that your attempt is rather weak and want to provide a counterargument for their consideration.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8644171, member: 16814"] Weird non sequitur. [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER] was speaking to the fact that the Inspiration system was bad design in part because it's so easily ignorable. You chose to, without any support, ask if it might have been intended design. I addressed that statement. Where is quality and how quality defined part of this chain? You directly suggested that the design intent was to be easily ignorable. I think it's exceptionally relevant. Ok. So, their intent in producing this books is that it is ignorable? This is a design goal? You're confusing what users may choose to do on their own volition for the intent of design. I'm 100% certain that WotC doesn't want you to ignore their rules -- they have a monetary interest in you 1) finding them interesting enough to buy them and 2) finding them useful enough to recommend and encourage more sales. Are you arguing that WotC is in the business of making books that they intend you to ignore? Your argument is that the PHB for 5e intentionally includes beginner rules at significant page space and doesn't call them out as such? That they predicated the DMG social encounter rules on these same concepts and that's beginner text as well? That you're supposed to abandon inspiration as you "get gud" and playing D&D? And that all of this is supposed to be obvious to veteran players, at least? I find this chain of inference to be very weak. It requires some pretty strong assumptions, especially when we can see that they actually do produce beginner on-ramping products that introduce rules in a stepped fashion. Further, as a veteran player, I'd absolutely LOVE for BIFTs to matter outside of the Inspiration mechanic, or just for NPCs within the social encounter mechanics. Sure, but you seem to be trying to persuade someone, yes? Otherwise, why post. Can I then be assumed to also be trying to persuade this other person(s), as I find that your attempt is rather weak and want to provide a counterargument for their consideration. [/QUOTE]

Verification