D&D General Why TSR-era D&D Will Always Be D&D


log in or register to remove this ad

overgeeked

B/X Known World
I;m not clicking that.

it is USED to discount expertise
Incorrectly used.

You should. The first line is: “It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus.” People who know fallacies don’t use it to discount expertise. People who know jargon but don’t understand the logical fallacy behind it use it incorrectly to refute expertise.
 


Sacrosanct

Legend
Publisher
And no, they didn't decide those things early on--or else they did so and never told anyone. As an example, Mearls explicitly tweeted that there WOULD be martial healing in 5e, and if players didn't like that, they could simply choose not to play those options (or, if DM, choose not to allow those options). And y'know what came of it? Diddly-squat.
Things like second wind and short rest healing HD were there from the beginning.
 



So not a lie, or a false claim, but not what most people who heard it expected, I'm sure.
its funny how people will argue that a missleading truth isn't a lie when they want to argue they didn't mislead...

edit in one of teh monster threads someone asked why people like the concept of fey... and I said this was pretty much my idea of evil fey, tell you the truth but in a way to make you believe a lie.
 

Oofta

Legend
So not a lie, or a false claim, but not what most people who heard it expected, I'm sure.
In addition, we do have battlemaster. It may not be a warlord class, but it did implement several of the features. Multi class or take a feat to get healing word and it's about as close as you're going to get with 5E's structure.

But again, plans change, some possible options get dropped, warlord was simply not popular enough or distinct enough to warrant it's own class. They decided to not have class bloat.
 


In addition, we do have battlemaster.
bull... that isn't even a 4e style fighter let alone a warlord and it was mentioned back when I first entered this part of the discussion.
It may not be a warlord class, but it did implement several of the features. Multi class or take a feat to get healing word and it's about as close as you're going to get with 5E's structure.
gee almost like when I said 8 years in you still need to kitbash to play one...
But again, plans change, some possible options get dropped, warlord was simply not popular enough or distinct enough to warrant it's own class.
citation needed
They decided to not have class bloat.
and I am sure that if they cut your favorite you would not mind at all

If your going to accuse someone of lying, please provide an actual quote.
why so i can be told it doesn't count, or that it is true form a certain point of view?
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
its funny how people will argue that a missleading truth isn't a lie when they want to argue they didn't mislead...

edit in one of teh monster threads someone asked why people like the concept of fey... and I said this was pretty much my idea of evil fey, tell you the truth but in a way to make you believe a lie.
I'm not defending the dev team, they made a ton of promises, especially during the Next playtest, that they went back on. I participated in every stage of said playtest, and very little of what I wanted in 5e is present. That just goes to show me that they don't really care about my opinion because I'm not in the majority, which is fine.

And maybe I read too much into their "promises", which is also fine. It still leaves me feeling less than happy about the state of things. But I'm trying to get over my bitterness...after all, as long as people are having fun, that's the important bit, right?

Right?
 


I'm not defending the dev team, they made a ton of promises, especially during the Next playtest, that they went back on. I participated in every stage of said playtest, and very little of what I wanted in 5e is present. That just goes to show me that they don't really care about my opinion because I'm not in the majority, which is fine.

And maybe I read too much into their "promises", which is also fine. It still leaves me feeling less than happy about the state of things. But I'm trying to get over my bitterness...after all, as long as people are having fun, that's the important bit, right?

Right?
you know I think I could get over the developers going a different way then they said if I wasn't constantly put upon to prove what they said word for word could not be interpreted another way...
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
its funny how people will argue that a missleading truth isn't a lie when they want to argue they didn't mislead...

edit in one of teh monster threads someone asked why people like the concept of fey... and I said this was pretty much my idea of evil fey, tell you the truth but in a way to make you believe a lie.

In the early (very early) stages of 5e, there was a full expectation that the edition would be modular. That there would be a core game and the group could add the elements it wanted as add-ons. Want a more 4e feel - add x. Want a more horror feel - add y. Etc.

Can't remember exactly when this was dropped, but it seemed to be the initial intention and I suspect what that particular tweet was referring to.

If you took everything the developers said they wanted/were trying to do as gospel (from the early stages of the game) you could leave very disappointed!
 

In addition, we do have battlemaster. It may not be a warlord class, but it did implement several of the features. Multi class or take a feat to get healing word and it's about as close as you're going to get with 5E's structure.

But again, plans change, some possible options get dropped, warlord was simply not popular enough or distinct enough to warrant it's own class. They decided to not have class bloat.
Except that, from data WotC actually collected, there were other classes less popular than Warlord. Druid, for example, was actually the least-popular class.

Popularity wasn't the reason, Jack.
 

Except that, from data WotC actually collected, there were other classes less popular than Warlord. Druid, for example, was actually the least-popular class.

Popularity wasn't the reason, Jack.
oh now this is interesting almost like the rabid 'cinemasinafaction' and meme nature of the hate on 4e lead the developers to give MORE weight to some classes then others.
 

In the early (very early) stages of 5e, there was a full expectation that the edition would be modular. That there would be a core game and the group could add the elements it wanted as add-ons. Want a more 4e feel - add x. Want a more horror feel - add y. Etc.

Can't remember exactly when this was dropped, but it seemed to be the initial intention and I suspect what that particular tweet was referring to.

If you took everything the developers said they wanted/were trying to do as gospel (from the early stages of the game) you could leave very disappointed!
There never was a specific point at which modularity was dropped. They just slowly but surely stopped talking about it. Likewise, martial healing was in until they stopped talking about it. Which...actually happened not super long after the tweet I mentioned. August 2013. Note, @Sacrosanct, that Mearls explicitly refers to it as "the warlord fighter is martial and has healing." It would be disingenuous as hell for him to be referring to Second Wind when saying that.

oh now this is interesting almost like the rabid 'cinemasinafaction' and meme nature of the hate on 4e lead the developers to give MORE weight to some classes then others.
Sadly, the poll that displayed this data was deleted in one of the (several) purges of WotC's site, so I cannot actually link it now. But it did exist. A lot of people like to pretend that 4e options are liked only by a tiny minority of fans, but the actual evidence over the years suggests otherwise.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
You were? I don't remember that being promised. Mearls talked about some overall goals early on but I don't remember anything like this. On the other hand like many projects wish list goals are often cut based on the realities of implementation.
What I remember is that 5e - during its Next/playtest days anyway - was in theory going to be designed such that it would end up being modular enough that you could a) mix and match the modules so as to play it like any earlier edition and b) fairly seamlessly integrate material (e.g. adventures, characters, etc.) from any earlier edition.

Hence, I had my hopes up that it'd be a short easy step from our 1e-like homebrew to a 1e-like 5e.

So much for that...
 

Oofta

Legend
So no one else on this thread has ever been on a development of a new project? Sometimes you have ideas, things you'd like to do, even think will be possible. Then you go through iterations of design and prototypes and you can't always deliver exactly what you thought you could. You realize that what you had in mind would lead to a worse product and not suit the actual needs of the users.

This edition had one of the most extensive playtests of any TTRPG ever. It's not perfect because nothing ever is, but it is the best selling TTRPG ever. The devs weren't misleading anyone on purpose. They may have been mistaken, they (particularly Mearls) probably could have phrased things more clearly. But ultimately they analyzed the results of the extensive feedback they received over months and changed their minds. What they weren't doing? They weren't lying because people don't like the direction they took.

In any case, have a good one. This is a pointless argument. Designs change and you can't always get what you want. 🤷‍♂️
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
And this is kind of a variation on the point I made earlier, arguing fallacies isn't productive. With a little effort it's not hard to find an exception to any informal fallacy, it's kind of built into their nature.
An informal logical fallacy (what's being discussed here) is not evidence that the conclusion is incorrect, it's saying that the argument does nothing to assist that conclusion. There aren't exceptions to this -- if it's an informal logical fallacy, it doesn't support the conclusion sought. It also doesn't disprove it.

Formal logical fallacies, on the other hand, are far more rare, much more narrow, and show the falsity of the conclusion in the argument. You usually only see this in very formal structures, like logical proofs, but they turn up from time to time.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top