D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[hawkeyefan]

The counterpoint here would be, can't you make the same points without resorting to such labels.

In case it isn't apparent by now, using such labels tends to focus more of the conversation on those labels themselves than the underlying point.

• So, why even open up that door?
• Surely those labels aren't required to make your point? And if they are, what does that say about your point?
• If you make the point without those labels and still get the same reaction - maybe what the person is taking issue with isn't really the labels themselves but actually the point?

Must I really defend discussing ideas rather than clutching pearls about a word chosen?

It’s a choice to get hung up on a word. To ignore everything else about a post and grasp one word chosen and then make the discussion about that.

Look at our exchange here. These posts are not about the topic. They’re about how people are allowed to talk about a topic.

Now, I can’t stop anyone from choosing to get their dander up and let the conversation shift away from the actual ideas it’s about. But I figured I’d point it out because I really think these conversations would go better if people stopped doing that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Look at our exchange here. These posts are not about the topic. They’re about how people are allowed to talk about a topic.

Back at ya. You are complaining how I and others approach the topic and what we are allowed to say about it. This street goes both ways.

 

[Oofta]

Oh my God, this is going to be a lot! Please bear with me and my many pedantic responses.

First up, @Oofta and others, I don't know how you play, and I'm not judging your games. I freely insult 5e as a text, because I don't think the text informs your play as much as you might. Any rancour is between me and WotC.

Do my three examples contain value judgements? A little bit? They're based on my personal experience, preferences, and feeling of lack of structure 'letting me down' in play. What they are not, is an insistence that a particular type of structure or play is better. A game about political intrigue would benefit from completely different kinds of structures. Some people like lots of rules; some people hate them. I do think you need to have some kind of effective procedures for a game to actually work well.]


That's kind of my point, though. 5e is incomplete; I have to shove the guts of another edition in it to make it work. For what it's worth, 5e also does a lot of things (e.g. giving out powerful cantrips like candy) that can undercut traditional dungeon exploring. So, 5e isn't vanilla, it's just a really watered-down and insipid chocolate.

See, the problem is when you say divisive things like this you are making a statement that simply are not true. You call the game watered down and insipid. It's insulting the preferences of everyone that likes the game. I think 5E is a competent game and I get tired of people saying things like this because the game wasn't written specifically for them. Your examples and statements don't contain "a little bit" of judgments. Your statements point to what I think is the best version of a game ever, that has had only incredibly minor tweaking in any game I've ever DMed or played in, and tell everyone that it is according to you it's objectively deeply flawed. Do you not understand how that gets significant pushback? We get it. You think you have to add a lot to the game. I don't. Nobody I've ever played with has had a significant amount of house rules.

You are conflating flexibility, the fact that the game is designed with the acceptance that DMs should make rulings that are not explicitly covered by the rules with incompleteness. Checkers can be complete. A TTRPG will never be. There have always been situations and basic assumptions that the rules do not cover and there always will be. Thank goodness. If I want a static set of constrained rules, I play a board game. There has to a human element, someone making judgement calls for a flexible game and 5E acknowledges that.

This edition has added literally tens of millions of new players, the majority of games being played today are being played by people who never played a previous edition. This is not some hacked-together barely working edition that you keep talking about. Only 11% of all people currently playing D&D are over 40. D&D players that are 25 and under are the biggest demographic at 40%. Do you really think a significant number of people under 25 played older versions of the game? That most DMs are pulling in rules from previous editions?

More structure does not make a game better or worse, it just adds more structure. There will always be a balancing act, I think 5E did a decent job at it and a better job than the previous 2.5 editions.

 

[FrogReaver]

It’s a choice to get hung up on a word. To ignore everything else about a post and grasp one word chosen and then make the discussion about that.

Let's go through some of this.

I don't think he said the word better at all. I think he has been explaining how those processes produce different results. The only point where I think he approached any kind of value judgment would be when he said that those processes add more player choice to the game. But that's more an observation than a statement of value.

In the post above aren't you making this topic about the word 'better' instead of the point of the poster you were responding to (which was about value judgment)?

Referring to the game as “unplayable” certainly implies value judgement and speaking repeatedly to what the game is supposedly “missing” or “lacking” is always going to come across that way.

Isn't this point mentioning the words 'unplayable', 'missing', and 'lacking' simply answering your post about where the value judgements are seen?

Right, but as I said in regard to the labels “complete” and “incomplete”… stop worrying about the label and consider the point behind it.

And here, isn't it you again turning the conversation more toward those words instead of focusing on the actual point of the post (value judgement).

Just some food for thought!

One final quote of you asking people to use different words.

Please drop the "inherently better" stuff. No one is saying that. Not better or worse, just different.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Let's go through some of this.

In the post above aren't you making this topic about the word 'better' instead of the point of the poster you were responding to (which was about value judgment)?

Isn't this point mentioning the words 'unplayable', 'missing', and 'lacking' simply answering your post about where the value judgements are seen?

And here, isn't it you again turning the conversation more toward those words instead of focusing on the actual point of the post (value judgement).

Just some food for thought!

What are your thoughts on the topic, Frogreaver?

I’d rather hear what you have to say about the topic instead of the endless debate about how people are allowed to speak.

One final quote of you asking people to use different words.

If you don’t see the difference between clarifying a point someone made and telling people not to use harsh words, then I don’t know what to tell you.

Someone critiqued 5E. Address the critique. “I don’t like that he described it negatively” doesn’t do that.

 

[Oofta]

What are your thoughts on the topic, Frogreaver?

I’d rather hear what you have to say about the topic instead of the endless debate about how people are allowed to speak.




If you don’t see the difference between clarifying a point someone made and telling people not to use harsh words, then I don’t know what to tell you.

Someone critiqued 5E. Address the critique. “I don’t like that he described it negatively” doesn’t do that.

Let's say you know someone that really likes their car. They like talking about it and how well it suits them. Then you go to them and tell them "Wow, your car is a piece of crap! I mean, I guess if you [insert all sorts of custom modifications] it would be okay, but right now it's just garbage. I don't see how you can even drive it."

Do you think they might take offense? Wouldn't it work better if you simply talked about what modifications could be done or that you prefer some other vehicle?

 

[Older Beholder]

That's kind of my point, though. 5e is incomplete; I have to shove the guts of another edition in it to make it work. For what it's worth, 5e also does a lot of things (e.g. giving out powerful cantrips like candy) that can undercut traditional dungeon exploring. So, 5e isn't vanilla, it's just a really watered-down and insipid chocolate.

So is 5E like Candy, vanilla ice cream or Chocolate? Because there’s already a thread dedicated to food metaphors. I’m just kidding, I really have no idea what watered down insipid chocolate is even supposed to mean, other than to be an insult. And now as someone that enjoys 5E I’m not sure if I should feel insulted or hungry.

Traditional dungeon crawling can be pretty vanilla too, or it can be great. Procedures and rules, at least for me have little to do with whether a game is one or the other. The section on creating dungeons in the DMG on the other hand can make a huge difference.

 

[FrogReaver]

What are your thoughts on the topic, Frogreaver?

I’d rather hear what you have to say about the topic instead of the endless debate about how people are allowed to speak.

On 'Why Editions Don't Matter'?

I think editions do matter but not usually as much as they are claimed to.

If you don’t see the difference between clarifying a point someone made and telling people not to use harsh words, then I don’t know what to tell you.

I think whether seeing something as a clarifying point or telling people to not use harsh words is very much so in the eyes of the beholder. I'm willing to bet anyone asking others to not use harsh words views their response as a clarifying point.

Someone critiqued 5E. Address the critique. “I don’t like that he described it negatively” doesn’t do that.

I think that's a mischaracterization of what's happening. On these very forums 5e players often critique their own game. They often are saying this doesn't work well for me, what do ya'll think about this solution. Even in those threads there's always some that say this isn't a problem for me because xyz or this seems more like a player/dm problem than a system problem. Etc.

So IMO, the pushback you get isn't about critiquing 5e, there's more to it than that.

 

[Oofta]

So is 5E like Candy, vanilla ice cream or Chocolate? Because there’s already a thread dedicated to food metaphors. I’m just kidding, I really have no idea what watered down insipid chocolate is even supposed to mean, other than to be an insult. And now as someone that enjoys 5E I’m not sure if I should feel insulted or hungry.

Traditional dungeon crawling can be pretty vanilla too, or it can be great. Procedures and rules, at least for me have little to do with whether a game is one or the other. The section on creating dungeons in the DMG on the other hand can make a huge difference.

Candy that's sold as chocolate in the US couldn't be sold as chocolate in Europe since it's mostly sugar. Chocolate in the UK is in my opinion far tastier, but chocolate in Peru was amazing. So for me watered down insipid chocolate would be a Hershey's kiss which kind of tastes like waxy sugar with a hint of something that kind-of-sort-of tastes like chocolate.

Anything can be improved and I think the DMG in particular could use improvement. But calling 5E "watered down insipid chocolate" is an insult as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Baron Opal II]

View attachment 262263


A pop tart is a calzone.

But a pizza could be toast or soup depending on where it was made.